Ask MRSC - Personnel & HR

From a legal perspective, MRSC does not see any issues changing the requirement from a state driver’s license to a valid driver’s license in general. You should nevertheless reach out to your risk pool or insurer to discuss just in case.

Also, for each position, you should consider whether driving is an essential job function or is related to a legitimate business purpose.

Under this new law, RCW 49.58.120, it is unlawful for an employer to require a valid driver’s license as a condition of employment or to include in a job posting that an applicant must have one, unless it is an essential job function or is related to a legitimate business purpose.

We also recommend that you discuss this matter with your agency attorney who will be in the best position to advise you further. Our guidance is general and not a substitute for the advice of legal counsel.

It is a matter of local policy whether and how to provide holiday leave and pay to employees. As noted on this Department of Labor & Industries (L&I) page, Holiday, Vacation & Bereavement Leave:

Washington State does not require employers to provide leave or pay for holidays, vacations, or bereavement. These benefits can be found in your employer policies or collective bargaining agreement. They are generally an agreement between an employer and employee. L&I does not enforce these agreements.

For additional information, see our Paid and Unpaid Holidays page and this MRSC blog post, Taking a Break: A Primer on Legal and Other Holidays (2026).

Assuming your agency’s current holiday pay policies do not reflect the new work schedule, MRSC recommends that the agency amend its policies to reflect the 4/10 schedule as soon as practical.

There are few different policy approaches for holidays and 4/10 schedules, with the most common being to provide paid leave for eight hours on a holiday, with the 10-hour shift employee needing to use paid time off (PTO) or otherwise make-up for the two hours they would typically work. Here is a brief summary of some different approaches:

• The “Top-Off” Requirement: In this approach, the holiday benefit is fixed at eight hours. If an employee’s scheduled shift is 10 hours, they must "top off" the remaining two hours using other leave types.
• The "Full Shift" Model: In this approach, employers provide holiday pay that matches the actual hours the employee would have worked (i.e., 10 hours).
• The "In Lieu Of" or "Flex" Option: This type of policy addresses what happens when a holiday falls on the 4/10 employee’s day off. Some policies allow an employee to choose a different day off during the same workweek. Or, if the holiday falls on a Monday and that is the employee’s day off, the following Tuesday is considered the “in lieu of” holiday.

You can likely find many examples of these types of approaches searching examples on our Personnel Policy Manuals page. Search terms could include “alternative work schedule” or “alternative work period”.

Of course, if this relates to union employees, check the collective bargaining agreement for relevant provisions and this would also be a mandatory subject of bargaining.

There are two main statutes to be aware of related to veterans’ preference in hiring. RCW 73.16.010 provides (with emphasis added):

In every public department, and upon all public works of the state, and of any county thereof, soldiers, sailors, guardians, marines and other members of the uniformed services who are veterans of any war of the United States, or of any military campaign for which a campaign ribbon shall have been awarded with a qualifying discharge as defined in RCW 73.04.005, and their widows or widowers, shall be preferred for appointment and employment. Age, loss of limb, or other physical impairment, which does not in fact incapacitate, shall not be deemed to disqualify them, provided they possess the capacity necessary to discharge the duties of the position involved: PROVIDED, That spouses of veterans with a qualifying discharge as defined in RCW 73.04.005 and who have a service connected permanent and total disability shall also be preferred for appointment and employment.

While the law is not completely clear, MRSC has opined that this statute applies to cities and special purpose districts, in addition to state and county agencies. RCW 73.16.010 applies the veteran’s preference in public employment “in every public department.” “Public department” is an undefined term that is not repeated elsewhere in this context, but RCW 73.16.031(4) defines “employer” to include “the state,” and RCW 73.16.031(13) defines “the state” to include “the agencies and political subdivisions thereof.” Further, RCW 73.16.005(4) expresses the legislature’s intent behind the law:

Therefore, the legislature intends that the governmental agencies of the state of Washington, and all the political subdivisions thereof, should be model employers in carrying out the provisions of this chapter.

The requirements in Chapter 73.16 RCW include avoiding discrimination against veterans based on their armed forces service or membership. See RCW 73.16.032. And, as referenced above, the preference in RCW 73.16.010 applies when all other qualifications between two candidates are equal. Several public agencies in Washington have included reference to the general veteran’s preference in their employment applications and/or policies. Here is one from the City of Spokane Valley:

Veteran's Preference

The City complies with the statutory requirement in RCW 73.16.010 to prefer employing veterans and their widows, as well as spouses of veterans who have a service-connected permanent and total disability. If two or more candidates for the same position are equally qualified, the City will offer employment to the candidate who is preferred as defined by the RCW. If you believe you are eligible to be considered for preference under the RCW, please provide documents at the time of application to verify eligibility, such as a DD 214 or other appropriate service discharge record(s).

In addition to the above general employment preference, public agencies must also apply the veteran’s scoring preference status in any competitive tests for hiring. The veteran’s scoring criteria is required by RCW 41.04.010, which provides:

In all competitive examinations, unless otherwise provided in this section, to determine the qualifications of applicants for public offices, positions, or employment, either the state, and all of its political subdivisions and all municipal corporations, or private companies or agencies contracted with by the state to give the competitive examinations shall give a scoring criteria status to all veterans as defined in RCW 41.04.007 […]

The precise scoring preference to be given depends on the nature of the veteran’s service and other factors listed in that RCW section. Note also that the preference is only to be applied to a passing exam score—the preference does not increase a failing exam score to make it passing.

Our Civil Service webpage includes a section on the Veteran’s Scoring Criteria Status that has more information. Note, however, that RCW 41.01.010 applies the status to competitive examinations in all public employment positions, not just those that fall under civil service.

The district’s legal counsel can give definitive opinions and advice on whether and how the district should apply the above requirements in any specific situation, but MRSC hopes the above information is helpful.

Here are your agency’s obligations:

• The employee is entitled to 21 days of military leave, which is paid leave (RCW 38.40.060). The employee can then elect to use accrued vacation or other available time off during the remainder of the military leave. Your local policy may provide more guidance on this topic.
• Assuming this is a full-time employee, the employee is entitled to return to their job at the agency after the six-month training concludes. See Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).
• Your local policies may differ, but the law does not require that the agency provide or pay for continued health care coverage during the term of military service. However, the federal law (USERRA) provides for COBRA-like benefit continuation for persons who are absent from work to serve. If a person's health plan coverage would terminate because of an absence due to uniformed service, the person may elect to continue the health plan coverage at their own expense. Individuals performing military duty of more than 30 days may elect to continue employer sponsored health care for up to 24 months; however, the employee may be required to pay up to 102% of the full premium.

This publication, from the County of Santa Barbara (CA) Superior Court, is helpful in explaining health insurance benefits under USERRA: The effect of Military Leave on Health Insurance and Flexible Benefits Plans. It notes:

There are two options available to employers for the continuation of employer-provided health coverage (medical, dental, and vision) for employees on military leave. The first option is to continue health insurance under the same terms and conditions as any active employee. The second option is to provide employees on military leave with continuation of coverage rights under USERRA that are similar to COBRA.

For more information and additional statutory citations, see MRSC’s Military Leave and Reemployment Rights page.

If the CBA allows the officer to pursue both appeal paths (a civil service appeal and a CBA grievance), the two appeal actions can likely proceed simultaneously.

The Civil Service Commission of the City of Kelso v. City of Kelso (1999) case is important in this area. Normally, two legal actions cannot proceed simultaneously when they involve identical issues. Instead, a law called the “priority of action doctrine” requires completion of the first filed action before the second one can proceed. But the Kelso decision held that a civil service appeal and a CBA grievance are not identical when each action gives the parties different rights and legal standards. In those instances, the actions can proceed simultaneously. The Kelso case involved civil service rules that required “good cause” to discipline an officer, and a CBA that required “just cause” to do so. These were different legal standards in the court’s view, so the two appeals could simultaneously proceed and the outcome of one would not necessarily affect the outcome of the other. The Kelso court reasoned:

Although this resolution allows duplicative review of disciplinary actions, such inefficiency must be resolved by the parties when they next negotiate their collective bargaining agreement. Often, where a State enacts collective bargaining laws against a backdrop of existing civil service laws, the parties will specify that only one avenue of appeal is available.

Despite this, parties can agree to “stay” (i.e., put on hold) one appeal action while the other is pending. It may be worth pursuing such an agreement with this officer if the city is subject to two simultaneous appeal actions in this instance.

For more information, see our Civil Service and Civil Service Court Decisions and AG Opinions pages.

As always, the city should work with its city attorney in evaluating its options.

While we have been unable to locate a specific state or federal requirement (other than one that only applies to school districts in RCW 28A.320.055), it does appear there is a highly encouraged practice to post collective bargaining agreements online. We have found many examples across Washington. RCW 42.56.520 encourages public agencies to make commonly requested records publicly available online. Further, some cities have specifically adopted their own procedures to always post such agreements online.

We are aware of no legal authority establishing a set schedule for employee driving record reviews by local government employers. Instead, these matters are up to agency specific employment policies that can vary widely based on risk.

Some employers request and review employee driving records every three years, in tandem with RCW 46.52.130(2)(b)(ii) which allows employers to release a three-year employee driving record abstract to their insurance carriers. The same RCW also says that the Washington State Department of Licensing (DOL) can offer employers periodic employee driving record reviews and updates for a fee by contract. See RCW 46.52.130(3)(b)(i). We are not aware of whether the DOL does this (we could find no information about this on the DOL website), but if it does, it may suggest a reasonable periodic review schedule for employee driving records.

Since many things can affect an agency’s risk in this area (including the number of driving employees, their driving records, how often and far they drive, the type of vehicle used, who owns and maintains the vehicle, and other factors), an agency’s driving record review policies and practices might also be different for different employees.

Given the many variable risk factors involved, the agency’s attorney and risk pool/insurance carrier should be consulted for definitive guidance.

No, a city council does not have a role in reviewing changes to civil service rules adopted by the civil service commission. In general, a civil service commission has authority to adopt and to change or revise its civil service rules, consistent with state law applicable to civil service, including Chapter 41.08 RCW (for city firefighters) and Chapter 41.12 RCW (for city police).

There is no legal authority for a city council to approve or not approve the civil service rules. I understand this is because civil service in local government was originally created to curb political favoritism and remove the coercive pressures that once caused public employees to contribute money and time to partisan political candidates. Civil service rules establish an even playing field of open competition for positions with hiring and promotions based on merit and demotions, suspensions, or terminations only for cause. For more information, see MRSC’s Civil Service page.

RCW 41.08.040(1) provides the legal authority for the civil service commission (for firefighters) to make its own rules and regulations:

It shall be the duty of the civil service commission:

(1) To make suitable rules and regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter. Such rules and regulations shall provide in detail the manner in which examinations may be held, and appointments, promotions, transfers, reinstatements, demotions, suspensions and discharges shall be made, and may also provide for any other matters connected with the general subject of personnel administration, and which may be considered desirable to further carry out the general purposes of this chapter, or which may be found to be in the interest of good personnel administration. Such rules and regulations may be changed from time to time. The rules and regulations and any amendments thereof shall be printed, mimeographed or multigraphed for free public distribution. Such rules and regulations may be changed from time to time. [Emphasis added.]

See, also, RCW 41.12.040(1) for law enforcement.

Finally, here is a link to a useful resource that many cities have used for their civil service commissions: Model Civil Service Rules for Washington Local Governments (2006 with 2008 update), by P. Stephen DiJulio, Foster Pepper PLLC.

In Washington State, effective January 1, 2024, pre-employment drug testing for cannabis is generally not allowed for positions that are not safety sensitive or fire/police/or first responder positions. MRSC’s Hiring Procedures page includes the following guidance about drug testing:

Drug testing is not a medical examination under the ADA, and thus may be required at the time of application, assuming there is a public safety or other compelling justification for the test. See Robinson v. Seattle (2000). However, effective January 1, 2024, RCW 49.44.240 prohibits pre-employment drug testing for cannabis (a legal substance in Washington State), except for in the following instances:

• The new law does not apply to: (1) fire department and law enforcement personnel; (2) first responders; and (3) safety sensitive positions for which impairment while working presents a substantial risk of death (these safety sensitive positions must be identified by the employer prior to the applicant’s application for employment).
• If a state or federal law requires an applicant to be tested for cannabis, then the state or federal law controls.
• If the local government is receiving federal funding or federal licensing-related benefits or has entered into a federal contract, then the local government must abide by any federal drug testing requirements (including testing for cannabis) included in the funding agreement or contract for relevant employees.

If an agency does require an applicant be tested for a spectrum of controlled substances, which includes cannabis, the cannabis results cannot be provided to the agency.

Further, drug testing of employees of any kind can only be done in limited situations: employees in positions that require a commercial driver’s license (CDL), employees in safety sensitive positions (police and fire), and employees whose conduct raises a "reasonable suspicion" of drug/alcohol abuse. Random drug testing can only be done in the first two instances (employees needing a CDL and employees in safety sensitive positions), since drug testing under a reasonable suspicion situation would not be random. A drug test of an employee in a non-safety sensitive position where there is no reasonable suspicion of drug use is a violation of that employee's constitutional rights. See Robinson v. Seattle (2000).

MRSC’s page on Employment Discrimination includes the following about drug tests:

Some employees in Washington State may be subject to drug tests for several reasons, including if an employer believes an employee’s performance is hindered because of alcohol or drugs, or if the employee was involved in an incident or accident. However, as of January 1, 2024, employers may not discriminate against job applicants based on their use of off-the-job cannabis (RCW 49.44.240).

Regarding rules and requirements, here are several examples of policies from other cities. You should work with your agency attorney to make sure these provisions remain in compliance with the new law: RCW 49.44.240.

• Ferndale Personnel Policy (2021) – See page 82 to view their “Drugs, Narcotics, and Alcohol” policy.
• Grandview Personnel Policy Manual (2025) – Page 58 (65 of PDF) includes a definition of “safety sensitive position.”
• Kitsap County Drug and Alcohol Policy (2024) – See page 3 of the PDF to view section on “Testing Programs.”
• Lynwood CDL Driver Policy - Driver Qualification and Drug & Alcohol Policy (2020) – See page 5, which includes a definition of “safety-sensitive function.”
• Soap Lake Municipal Code Ch. 2.76 – See Sec. 2.76.040, which includes a definition of “safety-sensitive position.”
• Spokane County Policy No. 650 – Drug-Free Workplace Policy (2024) – See definition of “safety sensitive positions” on page 245 of the PDF.

Again, MRSC recommends you consult with your agency attorney regarding drug testing of employees.

Here are some examples of retention incentive programs:

• Arlington Temporary Hiring and Retention Incentive Policy for Non-represented and AFSCME-represented Positions (2024)
• Bellingham Memorandum of Understanding - Retention Incentive for Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 24 (2023)
• Issaquah Retention Incentive Policy (2019)
• Mount Vernon Memorandum of Understanding - Lateral Officer Hiring and Retention Bonus (2023)

We also have the following resources and blog articles you may find useful:

• Employee Recognition Policies
• Maximizing Retention: Engagement Strategies for Local Government Shift and Low-Wage Workers (2024)
• Boosting Retention Among Gen Z and Millennials in the Local Government Workforce (2023)
• Recruiting for Local Government Positions (2022)

Here are some examples of local governments in Washington that have ombuds programs. Many of these pertain to reviewing decisions and actions of city or county staff when the public makes a complaint, rather than just internal matters.

• King County Office of the Ombuds – “We are an independent organization within King County government. We investigate allegations of fraud, waste, abuse, and ethics violations. This is to help ensure county services are being provided fairly. We respond to citizen concerns in an impartial, efficient, and timely manner.”
• Kirkland Ombud Program – “The role of the City's Ombud Program is to review the decisions and actions of City personnel in any department. When a community member makes a complaint about a City staff person, the Ombud has the authority to evaluate the situation, document what occurred, and describe whether the situation fits into City policies, other applicable regulations, or expectations for constituent service.”
• Seattle
  • Office of the Ombud – “The Office of the Employee Ombud is a resource for all current City of Seattle employees. At this time, the OEO is not a resource for former employees, non-employee applicants to City jobs, retirees, or the general public.”
  • Municipal Code Sec. 3.15.020-.022 – Office of the Employee Ombud.
• Snohomish County Office of the Public Advocate – “The Public Advocate serves as an independent and fair intermediary between Snohomish County citizens and their government agencies. The main role of the Office of the Public Advocate is to manage and investigate complaints and concerns involving Snohomish County agencies.”
• City of Spokane Police Ombuds – “The Office of Police Ombuds exists to promote public confidence in the professionalism and accountability of the members of the Spokane Police Department by providing independent review of police actions, thoughtful policy recommendations and ongoing community outreach.”
• Vancouver City Liaison – “A City Liaison specializes in receiving and responding to sensitive concerns and questions from the public. They work hard to find answers to your questions and solutions to your problems. Their goal is to improve City responsiveness to the community.”

In general, MRSC is not aware of any laws that prohibit having a policy that allows children to accompany parents/guardians at work. However, you will need to discuss the details of any proposed program or policy with your agency attorney and insurer/risk pool. One important consideration would be the safety of the workplace.

Here are some examples of Washington programs, most of which are at the state level and pertain to infants:

• Department of Enterprise Services: Infants at Work
• Department of Health: Infant at Work Program
• Department of Social & Health Services: Infants at Work Program (2023)
• King County: Allowing infants to come to work – 2018 pilot program
• Department of Transportation (WSDOT): Infant at Work Program (2018)
• Port of Skagit: Bring Your Child to Work – In 2020 the port adopted a temporary measure to allow employees to bring their school-aged children to work under certain conditions. It’s unclear if this policy is still in place.

And here are related resources and articles:

• Department of Commerce: Family-Friendly Workplaces – The Employer-Supported Child Care Technical Assistance Program (also known as Family-Friendly Workplaces) offers professional, no-cost business consultations that support employers in becoming family-friendly. Includes bringing children to work.
• King5 News: 'Infant to Work' program expands at Washington state offices (2019)
• KOMO News: WSDOT program allows parents to bring infants to work (2018)
• Seattle's Child: Baby in the boardroom: Infant-at-work programs good for kids, parents and companies (2018)
• Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction: Job Announcement – States that “[they] have an Infant at Work Program that is based on long-term values of newborns and infant-parent bonding. Eligible employees who are new parents or legal guardians can bring their infant (six weeks to six months) when returning to work. (Depending on job duties and work location.)”

We don’t think a public agency is prohibited from offering a candidate for employment a higher compensation than was advertised in a job posting; however, an agency should be able to justify why higher pay was offered than what was advertised.

There is a requirement to describe compensation and benefits in job postings in the Washington Equal Pay and Opportunities Act (EPOA). Specifically, in RCW 49.58.110, effective January 1, 2023, all employers with 15 or more employees are required to disclose in their recruitment advertisements the wage scale or salary range for each job opening. As set forth in the Department of Labor and Industries policy interpreting this requirement (Administrative Policy ES.E.1), “wage scale or salary range” means both the minimum and maximum compensation the employer reasonably and genuinely expects to pay.

Generally, as long as employers include in their recruitment posting and advertisements the compensation range they “reasonably and genuinely expect to pay,” then there would be room to ultimately pay a different amount, if needed based on nondiscriminatory reasons for a particular candidate. We suggest working with your district’s legal counsel to document the basis or bases for deviating from the expected wage/salary range that was published in your advertisement. You may also want to review the compensation currently being provided to other employees in the same or similar positions in order to ensure pay equity in the workplace.

For more information, here is a link to MRSC’s 2023 blog New Legal Requirements for Job Postings. As summarized in this blog:

The legislative intent in first enacting and then amending the EPOA includes taking steps towards gender equality by requiring employers to provide compensation and benefits information to applicants and employees and by prohibiting employers from seeking the wage or salary history of an applicant for employment in certain circumstances.

Finally, your agency may have a local policy about only offering compensation within the advertised pay scale. If so, the agency should follow that policy. Likewise, if the position is subject to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) or civil service there may be provisions there that apply.

There are government entities in Washington that have offered employees early retirement incentives. An agency should have a policy in place that describes the early retirement program such as who qualifies, how the financial incentive is calculated, and any restrictions or limitations on when the early retirement incentive can occur. The policy should also discuss how the program equates to cost savings over time. Agencies should also document how the retirement incentive is reasonable. An excessive incentive would likely be considered a gift of public funds.

Here are some example programs from governments in Washington:

• Everett Separation Incentive Program (2018) – Proposed program included in city council agenda.
• King County Voluntary Separation Program (2021)
• Washington State Voluntary Separation and Retirement Incentive Program (2019)

We would recommend working with your agency attorney if your agency wants to develop its own early retirement incentive program.

There is no state law that dictates how jobs must be posted or for how long. There may be a local policy regarding job postings. If so, that policy should be followed. Similarly, if there are positions that are covered under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), then that agreement should be consulted. But in general, the agency can remove the posts when they are no longer needed. For more information, see our Hiring Procedures page which includes a section on Advertising and Recruitment.

Health insurance is not considered compensation for elected officials and is not subject to the state constitution's limitations on increasing salaries of elected officials. Below is additional information from the Elected Officials section of our Health Insurance Benefits page:

By the state constitution the salary of local elected officials may not be increased after their election or during the officer’s term of office (Article XI, Section 8). Adding medical insurance coverage to elected officials after their election, one might think, would violate this constitutional prohibition, but it does not. RCW 41.04.190 provides that:

The cost of a [health insurance] policy or plan to a public agency or body is not additional compensation to the employees or elected officials covered thereby.

Most health benefits for elected officials are adopted informally by a motion but they can also be adopted by resolution. See the example below.

• Lynden Resolution No. 995 (2019) – Authorizes the mayor and councilmembers to enroll in a health insurance plan currently offered to qualified city employees

A stipend could also be given to an elected official instead of health insurance, but a stipend would be treated as extra compensation. Given the constitutional prohibition against additional compensation during a term of office, the stipend could not be given or accepted until the officer starts or is re-elected into a new term. While the provision of medical insurance to an elected official is not considered by statute to be additional compensation (RCW 41.04.190), there is no similar provision made for stipends.

See the policy example below:

• Vancouver Health Insurance Opt-Out Payment Policy (2018) – Allows councilmembers to receive payment in lieu of city health insurance; addresses the prohibition on mid-term adjustment of compensation of elected officials

For more information on the provision of health and other benefits to elected officials, see our blog post, Elected Officials and Benefits Programs.

There are federal standards and limitations regarding hours of service for commercial drivers. See this Summary of the Hours of Service Regulations for property- and passenger-carrying drivers from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA); the FMCSA Hours of Service page, and 49 C.F.R. Part 395. See also the Washington State Department of License’s Commercial Driver Guide at p. 1-20 that includes a summary of the limitations on hours of service (Section 1.10.12).

The city must have adopted an employee recognition or wellness program, and the dollar amount of each card cannot exceed the limits in that policy (see AGO 1995 No. 13).

We are frequently asked if some tangible form of recognition can be given after an employee or group of employees has shown some extra effort or outstanding performance. MRSC's consistent guidance is that any recognition program should be in place beforehand. Having a policy in place before purchasing and distributing the cards avoids the State Constitution’s prohibitions on gifting of public funds, Article VIII, Section 7, and the prohibition on extra compensation, Article II, Section 25, beyond that set by your city council. If the cards are given as part of an established policy, then the cards are considered as part of an employee’s compensation package.

The MRSC webpage Employee Recognition Policies includes a number of examples of codes and policies from a variety of jurisdictions.

One thing to note about providing gift cards is that they are considered taxable income to the employee. For more on that, please see the IRS Publication 15-B, Employer's Tax Guide to Fringe Benefits. It states:

Cash and cash equivalent fringe benefits (for example, use of gift card, charge card, or credit card), no matter how little, are never excludable as a de minimis benefit.

Local governments are allowed to provide tuition reimbursement to employees. In order to avoid a gift of public funds issue, local governments should develop a policy that ties the tuition reimbursement to compensation in the form of a benefit. The policy should also articulate the municipal purpose associated with this benefit (e.g., more competent/better trained personnel). Here are some cities that have developed policies:

• Aberdeen Tuition Reimbursement Program (2019) – Requires city council approval/agreement that funds are available. No more than 50% reimbursement (see p. 12-2).
• Ellensburg Tuition Reimbursement Policy (2024) – This policy clearly defines who is eligible and how and when tuition is reimbursed. It also sets the timeline and conditions for reimbursement (see p. 51).
• Kelso Tuition Reimbursement Policy (2016) – Simple policy requiring advance approval, “significant benefit” to the city (see p. 25).

The policy should include items such as who is eligible, how much can be reimbursed, and any conditions that must be met. You may find additional examples on our Personnel Policy Manuals and Employee Recognition Policies pages.

No. While Washington State has adopted a variety of laws to protect against discrimination in the job application/hiring process, none of these laws prevent a potential employer from asking a candidate if they have previously been fired.

RCW 49.60.180(4) specifically identifies unfair practices as any form of application or inquiry in connection with prospective employment related to age, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status or military status (including honorable discharge) but does not mention any limitations regarding prior employment.

WAC 162-12-140 provides additional examples of the type of information a potential employer is restricted in inquiring about but is silent on prior employment inquiries.

Here is an example of an application packet for court clerk that requires the applicant to fill out employment history. See Black Diamond’s application packet for court clerk.

MRSC has a variety of different resources to review addressing job postings and the hiring process:

• Hiring Process – Interviews and Interview Questions – Guidance on questions to be careful about during the interview process
• You Can’t Ask That! Pop Quiz on Preemployment Inquiries (2021) – Provides questions and answers on what interview questions can and cannot be asked, in a pop quiz format
• New Legal Requirements for Job Postings (2023) – Highlights the new Washington State Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) Administrative Policy for the Equal Pay and Opportunities Act (EPOA)

Below are several examples of recruiting/hiring policies that emphasize diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) policies, personnel policies, and DEI studies/plans. I’ve also included some additional resources that may be helpful.

Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) policies:

• Bothell EEO Policy (2021)
• Bremerton Ordinance No. 5394 (2020) – Regarding EEO program
• Kennewick EEO Utilization Report (2022)
• Everett EEO Policy Statement
• Tacoma EEO
• Vancouver EEO Policy (2011)

Personnel policies (see additional examples on MRSC’s Personnel Policy Manuals page):

• Aberdeen Personnel Policies (2019) – See EEO/Nondiscrimination policy (p. 17)
• Anacortes Personnel Policies Manual (2023) – See Hiring, which references EEO (p. 17)
• East Wenatchee Manual of Personnel Policies and Procedures (2020) – See EEO (p. 10)

DEI and recruiting plans:

• Tacoma Handbook for Recruiting, Hiring & Retention: Applying an Equity Lens (2015)
• Tacoma Workforce Equity Study (2021)
• Renton DEI Tactical Plan (2021) – See Recruitment Steps (p. 8)
• Snohomish County Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Assessment: An Internal Look at Workplace Practices (2019)

MRSC resources:

• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Resources for Local Governments
• Hiring Procedures
• New Legal Requirements for Job Postings (2023)
• Recruiting for Local Government Positions (2022)
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Efforts in Washington State (2020)

Below are some examples and resources that should be helpful. Additionally, some programs may be located in personnel manuals (see our Personnel Policy Manuals page for examples).

Local examples:

• Anacortes Accident Prevention Manual (2020)
• Davenport Fire Department Accident Prevention Program (2016) – This covers the whole city, not just the fire department, and includes an Appendix that lists specific safety programs by department.
• King County Accident Prevention Program (2015)
• Port Townsend Accident Prevention Program (2020)
• Redmond Personnel Manual Section 15.40 Accident Prevention Program (2018) – p. 118 states: “In addition to the City-wide Safety Committee and various Departmental Safety Committees, the City has developed and will maintain an Accident Prevention Program as required by WAC 296-800-140. The City’s Accident Prevention Program is outlined in writing and is tailored to the needs of each department’s workplaces and operations and to the types of hazards that may be present. The Accident Prevention Program must include:…”
• Renton Accident Prevention Program (2016)

Washington State Department of Labor & Industries resources:

• Safety & Health
• Accident Prevention Program

Currently, there are no state requirements to 1) advertise for job openings or 2) that dictate what is required to be in a job advertisement.

However, starting January 1, 2023, all employers with 15 or more employees must include in all job postings the wage scale or salary range, and a general description of the benefits and other compensation to be offered to the hired applicant. See ESSB 5761. Assuming your small district has less than 15 employees, this requirement would not apply. For tips on recruiting employees in this tight labor market, see this recent MRSC blog post: Recruiting for Local Government Positions.

We do not have a comprehensive list of jurisdictions that have adopted Juneteenth as a holiday, but we do have several examples below.

The Washington State Legislature adopted SHB 1016, making Juneteenth (June 19) a paid state holiday, effective July 2021. Because June 19 is a Sunday this year, it will be observed for the first time on Monday, June 20, 2022. President Joe Biden also signed legislation into law making Juneteenth a U.S. federal holiday. The date of June 19 commemorates the day in 1865 when knowledge of the Emancipation Proclamation and the abolishment of slavery reached the last remaining enslaved people in Galveston, Texas.

While local governments are not required to follow either the federal or state legal holiday schedule, many do, and RCW 1.16.050(6) authorizes the local legislative body to set their local government holiday schedules. Some jurisdictions that have adopted Juneteenth as a paid holiday for local government employees include Battle Ground, Bellingham, Bremerton, Burien, Burlington, Centralia, Edmonds, King County, Lynnwood, Renton, Seattle, Sumner, Walla Walla, Woodway, and Yakima. Olympia has an agreement with the International Association of Fire Fighters – Mechanics that includes Juneteenth as a paid holiday. Examples of Juneteenth proclamations are located in MRSC’s Sample Document Library, and include Kirkland's proclamation on Juneteenth and Snohomish County’s resolution.