No specific laws identified for this ruling.
The Washington Supreme Court affirmed that the Department of Labor properly found a repeat safety violation and denied attorney fees for Board proceedings, but held that the Equal Access to Justice Act does not apply to WISHA appeals in superior court or before the Board.
What Happened
Cobra Roofing Services challenged the Washington Department of Labor & Industries after being cited for a repeat workplace safety violation. The company disputed the citation and also sought to recover their attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, which sometimes allows parties to get their legal costs paid when they win cases against government agencies.
What the Court Decided
The Washington Supreme Court sided with the Department of Labor on the main issue, confirming that Cobra Roofing had indeed committed a repeat safety violation. However, the court ruled that companies cannot use the Equal Access to Justice Act to recover attorney fees in workplace safety cases, whether appealing to the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals or to superior court.
Why This Matters for Workers
This ruling strengthens workplace safety enforcement by upholding the state's authority to cite companies for repeat violations. It also means employers are less likely to challenge legitimate safety citations since they cannot recover their legal costs even if they win. This creates a financial disincentive for frivolous appeals, potentially leading to faster resolution of safety issues and better protection for workers on the job.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.