Dep't of Lab. & Indus. v. Cannabis Green, LLC
569 P.3d 303
Wash.2025Background
- The Washington Department of Labor & Industries (L&I) investigated Cannabis Green LLC (and related entities), a group of marijuana retail stores, for alleged wage and hour violations affecting multiple employees from 2018 to 2021.
- A former employee's January 2019 wage complaint led L&I to find broader potential violations, but Cannabis Green did not provide all the requested payroll records and eventually refused further cooperation with the investigation.
- In August 2021, L&I sent Cannabis Green a written proposed compliance agreement identifying the alleged violations and stating that if settlement failed, L&I would demand payment and pursue litigation.
- Cannabis Green rejected the proposed agreement and subsequent mediation efforts; L&I then filed suit in superior court seeking unpaid wages, double damages, and attorney fees for affected workers.
- The superior court granted summary judgment for Cannabis Green, dismissing the claims because L&I had not issued a formal order for payment before filing suit. The appellate court affirmed.
- The Supreme Court of Washington reversed, holding that the prerequisite under RCW 49.48.040(1)(b) does not require a formal order or sum certain; an informal demand or directive is sufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RCW 49.48.040(1)(b) requires L&I to order payment before filing suit | L&I argued it satisfied any pre-suit requirement with its informal directive, not needing a formal order or sum certain | Cannabis Green argued that L&I must issue a formal administrative order stating a sum certain before filing suit | L&I must demand payment before suit, but need not issue a formal order or sum certain |
| Whether the statute requires L&I to specify a sum certain before suit | L&I contended the amount owed could be determined through litigation and discovery | Cannabis Green asserted that suit can't be filed until a precise amount is first determined and ordered | No sum certain need be stated prior to litigation; notice pleading suffices |
| Whether an informal directive (e.g., compliance agreement/demand letter) satisfies the "order" requirement | L&I asserted its proposed settlement and correspondence sufficed as an order | Cannabis Green argued only a formal administrative action qualifies | Informal directives identifying violations and demanding redress are sufficient |
| Whether L&I's steps here complied with statutory prerequisites | L&I argued its actions were consistent with statutory mandates | Cannabis Green argued L&I never properly "ordered" payment as required | L&I's actions met the statutory prerequisite; lower courts erred in dismissing the suit |
Key Cases Cited
- Drinkwitz v. Alliant Techsystems, Inc., 140 Wn.2d 291 (Wash. 2000) (clarified Washington's pro-employee construction of wage statutes).
- Dennis v. Dep’t of Lab. & Indus., 109 Wn.2d 467 (Wash. 1987) (statutes protecting workers must be liberally construed in their favor).
- Department of Labor & Industries v. Overnite Transportation Co., 67 Wn. App. 24 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992) (L&I stands in shoes of employees for wage recovery and can seek attorney fees/exemplary damages).
- Corey v. Pierce County, 154 Wn. App. 752 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010) (attorney fees are available for wage actions resulting in a successful recovery).