Guaranteed Annual Paid Military Leave for Washington Public Employees Irrespective of Work Schedule

Commentary on Bearden v. City of Ocean Shores, Supreme Court of Washington, 2 Wn.3d ___ (2025)

1. Introduction

In Bearden v. City of Ocean Shores, the Supreme Court of Washington, sitting en banc, resolved a certified question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Court interpreted RCW 38.40.060 – Washington’s paid military-leave statute for public employees – and ruled that a public employee remains entitled to up to 21 days of paid military leave during each federal military fiscal year even when the employer has removed the employee from its work schedule because of an extended period of active-duty military service.

The case arose when Travis Bearden, a firefighter/paramedic for the City of Ocean Shores and a U.S. Army Reservist, was denied paid military leave for the 2020-2021 military fiscal year while deployed on active duty. The City argued that because Bearden no longer appeared on its duty roster, he lacked “scheduled workdays” against which paid leave could be credited. After the district court accepted the City’s view, the Ninth Circuit sought state-law clarification. The Washington Supreme Court’s answer not only vindicates Bearden’s statutory right but also establishes a clarifying precedent on how RCW 38.40.060 operates for all Washington governmental units and their military-affiliated employees.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Certified Question: Whether a Washington public employee is entitled to paid military leave under RCW 38.40.060 when the employee, because of an extended active-duty deployment, is not “scheduled to work” by the public employer.
• Holding: Yes. The statute’s plain language grants every qualifying public employee 21 paid days per military fiscal year for required duty, training, or drills. The phrase “scheduled to work” in RCW 38.40.060(4)(a) limits only the charging of leave; it does not condition the entitlement set out in RCW 38.40.060(1).
• Outcome: Question answered in the affirmative and remanded to the Ninth Circuit for further proceedings; request for attorney’s fees deferred to the federal forum.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents and Authorities Cited

1. Washington Federation of State Employees v. State Personnel Board, 54 Wn. App. 305 (1989) – The only prior Washington case interpreting the statute, holding that “days” means workdays, not calendar days. It laid the groundwork for reading leave provisions in reference to actual duty days.
2. Statutory Canons – The Court relied heavily on the plain-meaning rule (Campbell & Gwinn), the surplusage canon, and the “different words-different meanings” canon (Roggenkamp).
3. USERRA, 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301-4335 – Although the decision turned on state law, USERRA provided contextual support that military absences are deemed “furloughs” and should not penalize service members.
4. Legislative History – 2010 amendments adding the “scheduled to work” clause were examined in light of the Washington Federation problem, indicating an intent to prevent employers from deducting leave on non-workdays, not to create a new eligibility hurdle.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning unfolded in four interlocking steps:

1. Broad Beneficiary Class. RCW 38.40.060(1) applies to “every” public officer or employee who is a member of the National Guard or any U.S. armed-forces component, without regard to reserve vs. active status.
2. Annual Entitlement. The statute uses mandatory verbs—“shall be entitled” and “shall be granted”—guaranteeing 21 days each fiscal year (Oct 1–Sept 30). No temporal cap or qualification tied to the length of absence appears in the text.
3. Distinct Verbs, Distinct Functions. By contrasting “entitled” (subsec. (1)) with “charged” (subsec. (4)(a)), the Court concluded the Legislature purposely separated (a) the right to leave from (b) how an employer accounts for it. Treating “scheduled to work” as an entitlement condition would collapse that distinction and contravene the statute’s structure.
4. Avoidance of Absurd Results. Under the City’s interpretation, any employer could escape paying military leave simply by removing a deployed employee from future schedules. This would frustrate the very purpose of the statute and incentivize counter-productive last-minute notice practices.

3.3 Impact of the Decision

• State & Local Governments: Must budget for and credit paid military leave annually to any eligible employee, even if the employee will miss the entire year on active duty.
• Public-Sector Employees in Uniform: Gain certainty that their statutory benefit continues year over year, fostering economic security during deployments.
• Litigation Guidance: Clarifies that disputes over RCW 38.40.060 should focus on (1) employment status and (2) existence of required duty orders – not on whether a shift was physically posted.
• Statutory-Interpretation Precedent: Reinforces the Washington Supreme Court’s strict application of the plain-meaning rule and the different-words-different-meanings canon, likely influencing future readings of employee-benefit statutes.
• Potential Ripple Effects: Private employers in Washington, though not directly bound, may look to this analysis when administering parallel USERRA or company-sponsored paid-military-leave policies.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Certified Question

A formal request from a federal court asking a state supreme court to interpret state law that is decisive to a federal case.

Military Fiscal Year

The U.S. Department of Defense fiscal calendar running from October 1 to September 30, used here as the statutory cycle for calculating leave entitlements.

“Charge” Leave

Accounting practice whereby an employer deducts a leave day from an employee’s bank of available paid leave and records the associated payroll cost.

Plain-Meaning Rule

A statutory-interpretation principle requiring courts to enforce statutes according to the ordinary meaning of their words when the text is unambiguous.

Absurdity Doctrine

An interpretive safety valve allowing courts to deviate from literal wording to avoid outcomes the Legislature could not reasonably have intended (e.g., outcomes that nullify the statute’s purpose).

USERRA

Federal law protecting the employment and reemployment rights of service members; though separate from RCW 38.40.060, it shapes background expectations toward military leave.

5. Conclusion

Bearden v. City of Ocean Shores cements an unambiguous rule: Washington public employees who serve in the military are entitled to 21 paid workdays each military fiscal year, regardless of whether the employer places them on a work schedule during an extended deployment. By parsing statutory verbs, invoking established canons, and rejecting interpretations that would thwart legislative purpose, the Court delivered a clear, workable standard. Going forward, public employers must focus on honoring the leave benefit rather than manipulating schedules, while practitioners can rely on the decision as authoritative guidance on both military-leave entitlements and textual statutory interpretation in Washington.