In 2022, three Washington State Patrol (WSP) troopers, Joseph McClain, Linda Allen, and Jacob Payne, brought suit in their individual capacities against the WSP, arguing that the WSP’s commute pay policies violated the state’s Minimum Wage Act (MWA) by failing to compensate them for hours spent commuting in their patrol vehicles, despite the WSP’s strict control over vehicle use during commutes.
While commuting, troopers were considered “off-duty” and unpaid unless they encountered emergencies or traffic violations, which required them to respond and switch to “on-duty” status. The WSP also imposed restrictions on vehicle use, such as prohibiting personal errands or passengers.
The WSP countered that the troopers’ claims were governed by the CBA between the WSP and the Washington State Patrol Troopers Association (WSPTA), and that the CBA required exhaustion of its grievance procedures before litigation could commence. Here, the troopers had approached the WSPTA with their concerns regarding commute pay in 2020, which had rejected their plea to bring a grievance. “The WSPTA representatives said that if the troopers wanted to continue to pursue their grievance, they would have to hire their own separate counsel. According to one of the troopers, after this meeting, ‘they never heard from WSPTA about their grievance again.’”
It would be two more years before the troopers filed suit in the Pierce County Superior Court, which dismissed the troopers’ suit, ruling that the troopers had to exhaust CBA remedies first.
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2, reversed the Pierce County Superior Court’s decision, allowing the troopers to pursue their MWA claim in court without exhausting the CBA’s grievance procedures.
The Court applied a framework analogous to §301 of the federal Labor Management Relations Act, which permits statutory claims to proceed independently unless they are “inextricably intertwined” with the CBA. The Court found that the troopers’ MWA claim was independent because it alleged a violation of statutory wage standards, not contractual terms. The MWA establishes a non-negotiable wage floor, meaning CBAs cannot waive its protections.
The Court rejected the WSP’s argument that the supremacy clause in the Public Employee Collective Bargaining Act (PECBA) required CBA exhaustion, reasoning that the PECBA does not override the MWA’s minimum wage guarantees. It deferred to PERC precedent holding that the PECBA does not supersede statutes where the legislature has “occupied the field” — as it did with the MWA’s wage protections. The Court also dismissed the State’s standing argument, clarifying that while the WSPTA is the exclusive bargaining agent, it does not have exclusive authority to litigate statutory claims.
However, the Court limited its decision to the MWA claim, leaving open whether the Washington Rebate Act claim required exhaustion.
McClain v. State of Washington, 567 P.3d 1109 (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).