Is Washington an at-will state?
Reviewed Sep 24, 2026 4 official sources and 2 court decisions How we verify
Not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. General information; laws vary by state. Terms of use
The answer
Yes, with a narrow public policy tort
Washington treats employment without a definite contract as terminable at will. Its Supreme Court adopted the tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy in Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co. (1984) and describes it as a narrow exception (Martin v. Gonzaga University, 2018). (Martin v. Gonzaga University, Washington Supreme Court No. 95269-8 (2018); Rose v. Anderson Hay & Grain Co., Washington Supreme Court No. 90975-0 (2015))
“In Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co., we adopted the tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy as a narrow exception to the at-will doctrine.”
Before you fire someone: the step-by-step checklist
What it means for Washington employers
Washington's tort has a defined shape. The Supreme Court groups most claims into four scenarios: refusing to commit an illegal act, performing a public duty such as jury service, exercising a legal right such as filing a workers' compensation claim, and reporting employer misconduct (Gardner v. Loomis Armored, restated in Martin v. Gonzaga and Rose v. Anderson Hay & Grain). A dismissal that falls in one of those groups is analyzed under the Thompson and Wilmot standard. (Martin v. Gonzaga University, Washington Supreme Court No. 95269-8 (2018); Rose v. Anderson Hay & Grain Co., Washington Supreme Court No. 90975-0 (2015))
The first step is a clear mandate of public policy, which is a question of law and can come from prior judicial decisions or from constitutional, statutory or regulatory provisions. In Martin, a fitness center assistant director's belief that basketball court walls needed padding did not qualify, because no court decision, statute or regulation required it. For whistleblowing, the court said the focus is on the level of wrongdoing by the employer. (Martin v. Gonzaga University, Washington Supreme Court No. 95269-8 (2018))
Causation comes next. The court asks whether the policy-linked conduct was a significant factor in the dismissal, and circumstantial evidence can be considered. If that showing is made, the employer then has to articulate a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason; Martin notes this is a burden of production rather than persuasion. (Martin v. Gonzaga University, Washington Supreme Court No. 95269-8 (2018))
Two refinements matter for employers. The four-factor Perritt test from Gardner is a guide only for unusual facts that do not fit the four scenarios (Becker; Rose). And since Rose v. Anderson Hay & Grain (2015), the existence of another statutory remedy does not by itself block the tort: the court discarded the adequacy of alternative remedies analysis and said statutory alternatives do not preclude tort recovery unless the statute says or implies so. (Rose v. Anderson Hay & Grain Co., Washington Supreme Court No. 90975-0 (2015); Martin v. Gonzaga University, Washington Supreme Court No. 95269-8 (2018))
Ending the job also triggers two verified Washington duties. RCW 49.48.010 requires wages due to be paid at the end of the established pay period, and the Department of Labor & Industries says the final check cannot be held back until keys, uniforms or tools come back. RCW 50.20.140 requires the employer to make the Employment Security Department's printed claim-filing rules available to each worker at the time the worker becomes unemployed. (RCW 49.48.010; RCW 50.20.140; Washington L&I, Getting Paid)
Exceptions and special cases
- Wrongful discharge in violation of public policy (Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co., 102 Wn.2d 219, 1984): recognized, and narrow. Refusing an illegal act, performing a public duty, exercising a legal right, and whistleblowing are the recognized scenarios; the employee must show a clear mandate of public policy and that the protected conduct was a significant factor. (Martin v. Gonzaga University, Washington Supreme Court No. 95269-8 (2018))
- Implied contract from a handbook, and an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing: no Washington rule on these is verified on this site yet, so this page does not describe them. Check the Washington rulebook for official links.
Worked examples
A driver who refused to exceed federal hours limits
A Yakima hauling company is reviewing a driver who declined a run that would have meant falsifying drive-time logs and going past the federal limits. Rose v. Anderson Hay & Grain involved that pattern and placed it squarely in the refusal to break the law scenario, without the Perritt factors. For an employer, the useful step is to separate the refusal from any other performance record and to write down the actual reasons for any decision before it is made. (Rose v. Anderson Hay & Grain Co., Washington Supreme Court No. 90975-0 (2015))
Final wages after a dismissal on Tuesday, October 20, 2026
A Spokane shop pays weekly, and the week that includes October 20 is paid on Friday, October 30, 2026. Under RCW 49.48.010 the final wages are due at the end of that established pay period, by the October 30 payday, and the check is not held while the employer waits for the shop keys. At separation the worker is also given the printed Employment Security Department claim-filing information required by RCW 50.20.140. (RCW 49.48.010; RCW 50.20.140; Washington L&I, Getting Paid)
How to act on it
At-will: Washington and neighboring states
Each state links to its rulebook. Only rules we verified are shown.
| State | At-will employment |
|---|---|
| Washington | Yes, 1 verified exception |
| Oregon | Yes, 2 verified exceptions |
| Idaho | Yes, 2 verified exceptions |
Questions about Washington at-will rules
What are the four public policy scenarios in Washington?
Dismissal for refusing to commit an illegal act, for performing a public duty or obligation such as jury service, for exercising a legal right or privilege such as filing a workers' compensation claim, and in retaliation for reporting employer misconduct.
Where does a clear mandate of public policy come from in Washington?
From prior judicial decisions or from constitutional, statutory or regulatory provisions or schemes. Whether one exists is decided by the court as a question of law.
Does another statutory remedy rule out the tort in Washington?
Not by itself. In Rose v. Anderson Hay & Grain the Supreme Court said the existence of alternative statutory remedies does not prevent the wrongful discharge claim unless the statute expressly or impliedly precludes it.
Can a Washington employer hold the last paycheck until equipment is returned?
No. The Department of Labor & Industries says a final paycheck cannot be withheld because keys, uniforms, tools or equipment were not returned; wages are due at the end of the established pay period (RCW 49.48.010).
Is the Perritt test used in every Washington wrongful discharge case?
No. Martin v. Gonzaga University says the four-part Perritt framework is guidance only for cases that do not fit one of the four recognized scenarios.
The verified rules behind this page (3)
- Public policy: Washington recognizes the tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy (adopted in Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co.) as a narrow exception to at-will employment. (Martin v. Gonzaga University, Washington Supreme Court No. 95269-8 (slip opinion); Rose v. Anderson Hay & Grain Co., Washington Supreme Court No. 90975-0; verified Sep 24, 2026)
- Whether the employee is fired or quits, wages due must be paid at the end of the established pay period, on or before the next regularly scheduled payday. The employer cannot hold the final paycheck until keys, uniforms or tools are returned. (RCW 49.48.010(2); Washington Department of Labor & Industries, Getting Paid; verified Sep 24, 2026)
- Washington employers must post printed statements of the Employment Security Department's claim-filing rules where employees can readily see them, and must make available to each employee, at the time the employee becomes unemployed, a printed statement of those rules and any notices, instructions and other material the commissioner prescribes by rule. The Department supplies the material free of charge. (RCW 50.20.140(1); WAC 192-310-100; verified Sep 24, 2026)
Sources (6)
Checked Sep 24, 2026 · How we verify every rule · Report an error
General information, not legal advice. Not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. This page is for general information only and isn’t legal, financial or tax advice. Laws vary by state and change; check the official source or talk to a qualified professional about your situation. Report an error