Informal Directives Fulfill RCW 49.48.040(1)(b): Redefining “Order the Payment”

Introduction

Department of Labor & Industries v. Cannabis Green, LLC, 2025 Wash. LEXIS 102922-5, is a landmark Supreme Court of Washington decision clarifying the enforcement prerogatives of the Washington Department of Labor & Industries (“L&I”) under the Collection of Wages in Private Employment Act (CWPEA), codified at RCW 49.48.040. In this dispute, Cannabis Green, LLC and its owners (Todd and Elizabeth Byczek) challenged L&I’s authority to sue for unpaid wages on the ground that the agency had not first issued a formal, sum-certain order compelling payment. The Superior Court and the Court of Appeals agreed with Cannabis Green, but the Supreme Court reversed.

Key issues:

• Does RCW 49.48.040(1)(b) require L&I to issue a formal administrative order specifying a sum certain before filing suit?
• Can an informal directive—for example, a settlement proposal identifying violations and threatening litigation—satisfy the statute’s “order the payment of all wages owed” prerequisite?
• What are the implications for L&I’s wage-theft enforcement and for employers who withhold records or wages?

Summary of the Judgment

Justice McCloud, writing for an en banc court, held that RCW 49.48.040(1)(b) unambiguously requires L&I to order an employer to pay wages owed before initiating a suit, but does not prescribe the form or require the payment demand to specify a precise amount. The Court interpreted the plain text, legislative context, and remedial purpose of the CWPEA to conclude that:

1. The word “order” carries its ordinary meaning (“command, direction, or instruction”) and need not be a formal director’s order or citation.
2. Requiring a pre-suit identification of a sum certain would frustrate L&I’s investigatory powers and hamper workers’ rights, especially when employers withhold records.
3. An informal directive—such as L&I’s proposed compliance agreement outlining specific wage-hour law violations, time frames, and a threat of litigation—satisfied the statutory prerequisite.

Accordingly, L&I’s complaint survived Cannabis Green’s summary-judgment challenge, and the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded for further proceedings.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• Overnite Transportation Co. v. Dep’t of Labor & Industries, 67 Wn. App. 24, 834 P.2d 638 (1992): Held that L&I “stands in the shoes” of aggrieved employees when suing under RCW 49.48.040(1)(b) and may recover attorney fees and exemplary damages under RCW 49.52.070.
• Drinkwitz v. Alliant Techsystems, Inc., 140 Wn.2d 291, 996 P.2d 582 (2000): Emphasized liberal construction of remedial labor statutes to advance legislative intent protecting wages.
• Campbell & Gwinn, LLC v. Dep’t of Ecology, 146 Wn.2d 1, 43 P.3d 4 (2002): Established the rules of statutory interpretation—plain meaning, context, related provisions, and statutory scheme.
• Schilling v. Radio Holdings, Inc., 136 Wn.2d 152, 961 P.2d 371 (1998): Reiterated that remedial wage statutes must be construed liberally in workers’ favor.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning unfolded in three steps:

1. Textual Interpretation
   RCW 49.48.040(1)(b) states that L&I “may . . . order the payment of all wages owed the workers and institute actions necessary for the collection of the sums determined owed.” The court read the two halves of the sentence chronologically: first L&I may order payment; if payment does not follow, then L&I may file suit. Nothing in the text mandates a sum certain or a formal administrative process.
2. Context and Structure
   Comparison to RCW 49.48.040(1)(c) (which empowers L&I to take assignments of wage claims and then prosecute them) demonstrates that the legislature understands how to require discrete, formal steps when it intends to. It chose not to impose such formalities in subsection (b).
3. Remedial Purpose and Rule of Lenity
   Wage and hour laws are remedial; any doubts must be resolved in favor of the employee. A requirement that L&I calculate a precise sum before obtaining necessary records and discovery would undermine L&I’s enforcement authority and harm workers by creating perverse incentives for employers to withhold documents.

Impact

This decision reshapes Washington wage-theft enforcement in several ways:

• Agency Flexibility: L&I may use settlement proposals, informal letters, or other “directives” to satisfy the pre-suit demand requirement, then pursue litigation if an employer refuses to comply.
• Employer Accountability: Employers cannot evade suit by demanding that L&I issue a formal, number-specific order before filing. They remain on notice of alleged violations once L&I identifies the law, the misconduct, and the time frame.
• Procedural Efficiency: Eliminating the formal-order requirement prevents needless delays and allows faster vindication of workers’ wage rights.
• Constitutional Considerations: Requiring a pre-suit formal order arguably risks creating a procedural bar to court access. The Supreme Court’s interpretation avoids that pitfall by preserving broad access to judicial relief.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• RCW 49.48.040(1)(b): The statutory provision authorizing L&I to “order the payment” of wages and, if necessary, file suit to collect them.
• Formal Order vs. Informal Directive: A formal order typically involves a written citation and notice of assessment specifying a sum certain. An informal directive can be any written communication that identifies the violations and demands compliance.
• Sum Certain: A precise dollar amount demanded in the order. The Court held that L&I need not know the exact figure before suing.
• Notice Pleading: Under Washington law, a plaintiff need only give fair notice of the claims and relief sought, not allege detailed damage calculations before discovery.
• Remedial Construction: When a statute protects workers, any ambiguity is interpreted in workers’ favor to advance the legislature’s protective intent.

Conclusion

Department of Labor & Industries v. Cannabis Green, LLC establishes that under RCW 49.48.040(1)(b):

• L&I must demand that an employer pay wages owed before suing for those wages.
• That demand need not be a formal, sum-certain order; an informal directive suffices.
• The specific sums claimed can be determined through litigation under notice-pleading principles.

By preserving L&I’s investigatory and enforcement flexibility, the Supreme Court’s decision strengthens workers’ practical access to relief for unpaid wages and ensures that employers cannot hide behind procedural technicalities to evade liability.