Teamsters, Local 117 v. Northwest Beverages, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the Washington law “does not define ‘wages’ to include the cash value of contingent benefits such as the right to sick leave,” after finding that sick leave as provided by Northwest Beverages was not vested compensation
• holding that the Washington law “does not define ‘wages’ to include the cash value of contingent benefits such as the right to sick leave,” after finding that sick leave as provided by Northwest Beverages was not vested compensation
• holding that the Washington law “does not define ‘wages’ to include the cash value of contingent benefits such as the right to sick leave,” after finding that sick leave as provided by Northwest Beverages was not vested compensation
• holding that the Washington law “does not define ‘wages’ to include the cash value of contingent benefits such as the right to sick leave,” after finding that sick leave as provided by Northwest Beverages was not vested compensation
• holding that unclaimed sick leave is “a contingent benefit due only in the event an employee misses work due to illness” and, consequently, is not within the definition of “wages” under either ch. 49.48 RCW or ch. 49.46 RCW
• finding no legislative purpose 7 “to convert contingent benefits into wages” in the MWA

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).