In late June, the Washington Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision on paid military leave. The decision clarified how cities must consider an employee’s eligibility when on extended leave, regardless of whether the city employee “is scheduled to work” while they are on leave. Cities should note the interpretation and review their own leave policies to make sure they are in compliance with the decision.

In Bearden v. City of Ocean Shores, a city-employed firefighter/paramedic later joined the U.S. Army Reserves while in city employment. During the firefighter’s time in the Reserves, he took periodic paid military leave absences from his city firefighting job. In 2019 and 2020, the employee’s Reserve duties required multiple periods of military leave, including an extended nine-month stint that carried over into the next fiscal year.

The employee exhausted the paid military leave they were entitled to under state law as well as accrued leave from their job in 2019. After all of their leave was exhausted, the city removed the employee from the active schedule and let them know they were being placed on an extended “leave without pay status” for the remainder of their military leave. While on leave, the fiscal year rolled over – theoretically restarting a new year of eligibility for state paid military leave. The city argued that the employee was not entitled to the new year of paid leave, since the employee had already been removed from the city’s work schedule because they were still on extended leave, were not “scheduled to work,” and at that point were considered on an active-duty deployment and an employee of the military.

Washington law provides for 21 days of paid leave per year (starting October 1 through the next September 30) for public employees that get called up for military duty, training, or drills. The statute requires employees to receive their “normal pay” during military leave days that they were “scheduled to work” for their employer. The Court understands “days” to mean an employee’s regular workdays and not calendar days.

The Court reasoned that the plain language of the statute was clearly intended to give public employees 21 days of paid military leave each fiscal year, regardless of the type of military service an employee was called up to. It does not place any time limit on eligibility for paid military leave for each fiscal year. Finally, the Court found that the “scheduled to work” provision of the statute does not impact eligibility for the paid military leave entitlement itself.

The Court found that the statute’s “scheduled to work” language is only meant to direct employers to record the expense of each day of military leave to regular workdays the employee would have otherwise been expected to work, not limit eligibility for leave to days that the employee is on the employer’s work schedule.

The Court’s decision helps clarify how public employers should account for employees on military leave and makes clear that the Legislature’s intent is for this benefit to go to eligible public employees each year. Cities should review their policies on paid military leave to make sure they comply with the Court’s decision, especially regarding employees that get called up for extended periods of military service.

Note: This article is for general educational purposes and is not intended as legal advice. Cities should consult their legal counsel with any questions or concerns about specific legal issues or risks.