253 P.3d 430
Wash. Ct. App.2011Background
- James Hill, a former inmate, worked in a Class II inmate work program for DOC and was paid $0.85/hour.
- Injury occurred December 10, 2002, while Hill painted and he injured both knees after a fall.
- L&I issued time-loss benefits based on Hill's assumed work schedule of 7.5 hours/day, 6 days/week, and $0.85/hour.
- DOC characterized Hill’s compensation as a gratuity, not wages, and did not report it as wages to the IRS.
- Hill appealed, challenging whether former RCW 51.08.178(1) or (4) should govern the wage basis for time-loss.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to L&I; Hill appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicable wage basis for time-loss | Hill contends wages should be calculated under RCW 51.08.178(4). | L&I argues wages fall under RCW 51.08.178(1) as the default basis. | Former RCW 51.08.178(1) applies; Hill's pay is wages. |
| Wages versus gratuities for Class II inmates | Labeling as gratuity means not wages under former RCW 51.08.178(1). | Payments were compensation for work and thus wages despite gratuity nomenclature. | Hill's compensation is wages under former RCW 51.08.178(1). |
| Effect of 72.09.100 on wage classification | Inmate payments labeled as gratuities cannot be wages for time-loss calculations. | Statutory framework requires remuneration for work; classification as gratuity does not defeat wage status. | Remuneration for Class II work constitutes wages under RCW 51.08.178(1). |
Key Cases Cited
- Ruse v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 138 Wash.2d 1, 977 P.2d 570 (1999) (de novo standard of review for Board decisions)
- Avundes v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 140 Wash.2d 282, 996 P.2d 593 (2000) (statutory interpretation of wages under RCW 51.08.178(1))
- Rose v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 57 Wash.App. 751, 790 P.2d 201 (1990) (wages include all forms of consideration for work performed)
- Gallo v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 155 Wash.2d 470, 120 P.3d 564 (2005) (limits on in-kind benefits; labels not controlling for wage status)
- Cockle v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 142 Wash.2d 801, 16 P.3d 583 (2001) (defines ordinary meaning of wages and related terms)
- Granger v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 159 Wash.2d 752, 153 P.3d 839 (2007) (agency interpretations are not binding when conflicting with statute)