Margaret M. House v. Department Of Labor And Industries
199 Wash. App. 1
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Margaret House worked part-time for the City of Roy after a 2009 reduction in hours and received unemployment benefits for lost hours.
- On October 4, 2010, House suffered an industrial injury while working for the City and began receiving temporary total disability benefits; her unemployment benefits were then terminated.
- The Department of Labor and Industries issued a wage order setting House’s monthly wage based on employer-paid hours and pay rate, excluding unemployment compensation.
- House protested; the Board initially proposed including unemployment but ultimately affirmed the Department’s wage order excluding unemployment compensation.
- The Pierce County Superior Court affirmed the Board; House appealed to the Court of Appeals arguing unemployment benefits are "other consideration of like nature" or analogous to dual employment and should be included in wages under RCW 51.08.178.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unemployment benefits are "wages" under RCW 51.08.178 | House: unemployment is readily identifiable, calculable, critical to survival, and thus "other consideration of like nature" to be included | Department: unemployment is paid by Employment Security Dept., not employer, so not wages | Court: Excluded — wages must be received from the employer as part of the contract of hire |
| Whether tips analogy shows wages can come from non-employers | House: tips come from customers but count as wages, so unemployment should too | Department: statute specifically treats tips differently; general rule requires employer origin | Court: Rejected — statute separately addresses tips; general rule requires employer payment |
| Whether Cockle requires inclusion of unemployment benefits as in-kind compensation | House: Cockle’s standard (readily identifiable, calculable, critical) applies | Department: Cockle still requires employer-provided consideration under statute | Court: Cockle inapplicable because benefits were not provided by employer |
| Whether policy favors inclusion to protect injured worker | House: IIA should be liberally construed for injured workers | Department: Statutory language controls over general policy | Court: Policy cannot override clear statutory wording; exclusion affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Rogers v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 151 Wn. App. 174 (review denied) (board orders prima facie correct; challenger bears burden)
- Dep’t of Labor & Indus. v. Granger, 159 Wn.2d 752 (2007) (statutory construction reviewed de novo)
- Cockle v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 142 Wn.2d 801 (2001) (employer-provided in-kind benefits may be wages if identifiable and critical)
- Hill v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 161 Wn. App. 286 (2011) (wages are consideration received from employer for work)
- Malang v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 139 Wn. App. 677 (2007) (award based on remuneration employer paid)
- Rose v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 57 Wn. App. 751 (1990) (wages involve employer remuneration)
- Kustura v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 142 Wn. App. 655 (2008) (government-mandated benefits and employer contributions to such do not constitute wages)