Washington
Washington Workplace Recording Laws: Employee Rights and Employer Rules (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 22, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 22, 2026. · 9 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Washington requires all-party consent for workplace recordings under RCW 9.73.030. Employees and employers cannot secretly record private conversations, including meetings, calls, or HR interviews. Secret recording is a gross misdemeanor carrying up to 364 days in jail and a $5,000 fine.
Washington's two-party consent law applies with full force in the workplace. Under RCW 9.73.030, it is unlawful to record any private conversation without the consent of all participants, and the workplace is no exception. This means employees cannot secretly record meetings, supervisors cannot covertly monitor private employee conversations, and businesses must follow strict disclosure requirements before recording any workplace communications.
Understanding these rules is critical for both employees and employers. Employees who secretly record workplace conversations to document harassment or discrimination may face criminal charges, even if their intentions are sympathetic. Employers who monitor communications without proper notice may expose themselves to significant legal liability.
Can Employees Record at Work in Washington?
The General Rule
Employees in Washington cannot secretly record private workplace conversations. The all-party consent requirement under RCW 9.73.030 applies to conversations between:
- Employees and their coworkers
- Employees and their supervisors or managers
- Employees and clients or customers
- Employees and HR representatives
- Any private conversation that takes place on the employer's premises
To legally record any of these conversations, the employee must announce the recording in a "reasonably effective manner" and obtain consent from all parties before beginning to record. The announcement itself must also be recorded.
Recording Meetings
Recording workplace meetings, whether in-person or virtual, requires consent from every participant. This applies to:
- One-on-one meetings with a supervisor
- Team meetings and group discussions
- Performance reviews and disciplinary hearings
- HR investigations and interviews
- Virtual meetings on platforms like Zoom, Teams, or Webex
If an employee wants to record a meeting, they must announce their intent to record before the meeting begins and allow any participant to object. An objecting participant's refusal must be respected.
The Common Misconception About Documenting Harassment
Many employees mistakenly believe they can secretly record workplace harassment or discrimination to build evidence for a legal claim. While the intent is understandable, secret recording violates Washington law regardless of the reason. An employee who secretly records a supervisor making discriminatory remarks has committed a gross misdemeanor under RCW 9.73.080, and the recording is inadmissible in court under RCW 9.73.050.
Alternative methods for documenting workplace misconduct include:
- Written notes taken contemporaneously after the conversation
- Emails and text messages sent to the offending party that reference the conversation
- Witnesses who can corroborate what was said
- Formal complaints filed through HR or external agencies like the Washington State Human Rights Commission or the EEOC
The Threat Exception in the Workplace

The most important exception for employees facing dangerous situations at work is the threat exception under RCW 9.73.030(2)(b). This provision allows one-party consent recording when a workplace conversation involves:
- Threats of bodily harm against any person
- Threats of extortion against any person
- Threats of blackmail against any person
- Unlawful requests or demands
How This Applies at Work
If a coworker or supervisor threatens you with physical violence at work, you may legally record that conversation without announcing the recording or obtaining their consent. Only your own consent is required. This exception recognizes that victims of workplace threats need the ability to preserve evidence without alerting the person making the threats.
The exception also covers unlawful demands. If a supervisor demands that an employee engage in illegal activity, the employee may record that demand with one-party consent.
Limits of the Threat Exception
The threat exception is narrow and must be applied carefully:
- It covers only the specific threatening or unlawful content of the conversation
- It does not provide a blanket license to record all future interactions with the threatening person
- Courts may scrutinize whether the recording party provoked the threatening statements
- You should document the circumstances that led you to believe the exception applied
If a workplace conversation begins as an ordinary discussion and escalates to threats, the exception covers the threatening portion. However, recording an entire workday of interactions in the hope of catching a threat is likely outside the scope of the exception.
Employer Monitoring Rights

Can Employers Monitor Employees in Washington?
Employers in Washington may monitor certain workplace communications, but they must comply with RCW 9.73.030 and provide appropriate notice. The statute does not provide a blanket employer exception.
Phone Call Monitoring
Employers who monitor or record employee phone calls must:
- Announce the recording before it begins, or
- Provide clear advance notice to employees that their calls may be monitored
Many employers use automated announcements on their phone systems ("This call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes") to satisfy the consent requirement. This announcement must be heard by both the employee and the person on the other end of the call.
Email and Computer Monitoring
While RCW 9.73.030 focuses primarily on oral and telephonic communications, employers who monitor employee email, internet usage, or computer activity should still provide written notice. Best practices include:
- Including a monitoring disclosure in the employee handbook
- Having employees sign an acknowledgment that their electronic communications on company systems may be monitored
- Posting visible notices near monitored workstations
- Clarifying that employees have no expectation of privacy when using company equipment
Video Surveillance at Work
Employers may use video surveillance in the workplace, but the audio component triggers RCW 9.73.030. Key rules:
- Silent video surveillance in common work areas (hallways, lobbies, parking lots) is generally permissible with notice
- Video with audio recording of private workplace conversations requires all-party consent
- Cameras in private areas such as restrooms, changing rooms, and break rooms with a reasonable expectation of privacy are prohibited under voyeurism laws (RCW 9A.44.115)
- Employers should post signs notifying employees and visitors that video surveillance is in use
Employer Best Practices for Compliance

Written Monitoring Policy
Every Washington employer that monitors workplace communications should maintain a written monitoring policy that includes:
- Types of monitoring: Specify exactly what is monitored (phone calls, email, internet, video, etc.)
- Purpose: Explain the business reasons for monitoring
- Scope: Clarify which communications are subject to monitoring and which are not
- Employee acknowledgment: Require employees to sign an acknowledgment that they have received and understood the policy
- Exceptions: Identify any communications that are not monitored (personal cell phone calls, for example)
Onboarding Disclosure
New employees should receive notice about monitoring practices during the onboarding process. This notice should be:
- In writing and included in the employee handbook
- Signed by the employee as evidence of acknowledgment
- Updated regularly as monitoring practices change
- Clearly written in plain language that employees can understand
Recording During Investigations
Employers conducting internal investigations (for harassment, theft, policy violations, etc.) face special considerations:
- Interviews: Recording an investigative interview requires consent from the employee being interviewed
- Consent should be documented: Ask the employee to verbally confirm their consent to recording, and capture that confirmation on the recording
- Union considerations: In unionized workplaces, employees may have the right to union representation during recorded investigative interviews under Weingarten rights
- Attorney-client privilege: Conversations between the employer's legal counsel and the employer should not be recorded by third parties
Washington Employment Discrimination and Retaliation Protections
Filing Complaints Without Recording
Employees who experience workplace misconduct have legal avenues that do not require secret recordings:
- Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC): Handles complaints of discrimination based on protected classes under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (RCW 49.60)
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC): Handles federal employment discrimination complaints
- Washington Department of Labor and Industries (L&I): Handles workplace safety complaints and wage violations
- Internal HR complaints: Most employers have formal complaint procedures
Whistleblower Protections
Washington's whistleblower protection statute, RCW 42.40, protects state employees who report improper governmental action. Private sector employees have protections under RCW 49.60.210, which prohibits retaliation against employees who file discrimination complaints.
Federal Workplace Recording Considerations
The Federal Wiretap Act
Federal wiretap law under 18 U.S.C. Section 2511 follows a one-party consent model for recording conversations. However, Washington's stricter two-party consent requirement supersedes the federal minimum for conversations occurring in Washington.
NLRB and Section 7 Rights
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) addresses workplace recording policies in the context of Section 7 rights under the National Labor Relations Act. The controlling standard is Stericycle, Inc. and Teamsters Local 628, 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), which overruled Boeing Co., 365 NLRB No. 154 (2017). Under Stericycle, facially neutral workplace rules -- including no-recording policies -- are presumptively unlawful if they have a reasonable tendency to chill employees from exercising Section 7 rights. The burden shifts to the employer to show a legitimate justification outweighing that chilling effect.
Key points:
- Employer no-recording policies must be narrowly drawn to survive NLRA scrutiny under Stericycle
- A blanket prohibition on all workplace recording is presumptively unlawful; policies limited to protecting trade secrets or confidential client data are more defensible
- Boeing's earlier, more employer-favorable balancing test no longer controls
- Washington employers cannot invoke RCW 9.73.030 alone to justify a blanket ban on employee recording activity that is otherwise protected under the NLRA
HIPAA and Healthcare Workplaces
In healthcare settings, recording may implicate the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Employers in healthcare must consider:
- Patient privacy protections under HIPAA
- State medical record confidentiality laws
- The additional consent requirements when recording involves patient information
Penalties for Workplace Recording Violations
Criminal Penalties
Under RCW 9.73.080, any person who violates the Privacy Act in the workplace faces:
| Offense | Classification | Maximum Jail | Maximum Fine |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recording without consent | Gross Misdemeanor | 364 days | $5,000 |
| Disclosing an illegal recording | Gross Misdemeanor | 364 days | $5,000 |
Civil Liability
Under RCW 9.73.060, the recorded person may file a civil lawsuit and recover:
- Actual damages, including mental pain and suffering
- Liquidated damages of $100 per day of violation (capped at $1,000)
- Reasonable attorney fees and costs
Inadmissibility
Under RCW 9.73.050, recordings obtained in violation of the Privacy Act are inadmissible in any Washington court. This means an employee who secretly records evidence of harassment cannot use that recording in a lawsuit or administrative proceeding. The recording may actually harm their case by exposing them to a counterclaim for privacy violations.
More Washington Recording Laws
Audio Recording | Video Recording | Voyeurism & Hidden Cameras | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Phone Call Recording | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant | Dashcam Laws | Schools | Medical Recording
Back to Washington Recording Laws
More Washington Recording Topics
More Washington Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I secretly record my boss in Washington?
No. Washington's two-party consent law under RCW 9.73.030 prohibits secretly recording any private conversation, including conversations with your boss. You must announce the recording and obtain consent from all parties. The only exception is if your boss is making threats of bodily harm, extortion, or blackmail, in which case RCW 9.73.030(2)(b) allows one-party consent recording of the threatening content.
Can I record workplace harassment as evidence in Washington?
Not secretly. Secretly recording workplace harassment is a gross misdemeanor under RCW 9.73.080, and the recording would be inadmissible in court under RCW 9.73.050. If the harassment involves threats of bodily harm, the threat exception may apply. Otherwise, document harassment through written notes, witness statements, and formal complaints to HR or the Washington State Human Rights Commission.
Can my employer record my phone calls at work?
Yes, but only with proper notice and consent. Under RCW 9.73.030, employers must announce that calls are being recorded before the recording begins. This can be done through an automated message on the phone system. Both the employee and the outside caller must hear the announcement. A blanket policy in the employee handbook alone is not sufficient without real-time notification.
Can my employer put cameras in the workplace?
Employers may use silent video surveillance in common work areas with proper notice. However, video with audio recording of private conversations requires all-party consent under RCW 9.73.030. Cameras are prohibited in private areas such as restrooms and changing rooms under voyeurism laws (RCW 9A.44.115). Employers should post visible signage notifying employees that surveillance is in use.
What should I do if my employer is illegally recording me at work?
You may file a criminal complaint with law enforcement, as illegal recording is a gross misdemeanor. You can also file a civil lawsuit under RCW 9.73.060 to recover actual damages or liquidated damages of $100 per day (capped at $1,000), plus attorney fees. Consider consulting an employment attorney to evaluate your options.
Updates
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Revised Code of Washington
§ 9.73.030Intercepting, recording, or divulging private communication—Consent required—Exceptions.In forcecited in 41 of our articles
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any: (a) Private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device between two or more individuals between points within or without the state by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record and/or transmit said communication regardless how such device is powered or actuated, without first obtaining the consent of all the participants in the communication; (b) Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 221 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Washington courts have policed what counts as a private communication under Sec. 9.73.030: State v. Gunwall (1986) concluded a pen register intercept comes within a private communication transmitted by telephone, while State v. Riley (1993) held a line trap that reveals only the calling number does not record one.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Salinas (Washington Supreme Court 1992, 119 Wash. 2d 192)“…alties for divulging a telegram or opening a sealed letter. RCW 9.73.030-.070, making it unlawful to intercept,…”
- State v. Gunwall (Washington Supreme Court 1986, 106 Wash. 2d 54)✓Everett police pulled a suspected cocaine dealer's toll records and put a pen register on her line without valid legal process; the court held a pen register intercept is a private communication transmitted by telephone, installable only under the eavesdropping statutes.
- State v. Brown (Washington Supreme Court 1997, 132 Wash. 2d 529)✓Palm Springs officers secretly recorded a Washington murder suspect's statements after his arrest; the court treated RCW 9.73.090, not 9.73.030, as the provision reaching recordings of arrested persons, and held the Privacy Act did not require suppressing that recording.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 49.60.210Unfair practices—Discrimination against person opposing unfair practice—Retaliation against whistleblower.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) It is an unfair practice for any employer, employment agency, labor union, or other person to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because he or she has opposed any practices forbidden by this chapter, or because he or she has filed a charge, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under this chapter. (2) It is an unfair practice for a government agency or government manager or supervisor to retaliate against a whistleblower as defined in chapter 42.40 RCW. (3) It is an unfair practice for any employer, employment agency, labor union, government agency, government manager, or government supervisor to discharge, expel, discriminate, or otherwise retaliate against an individual assisting with an office of fraud and accountability investigation under RCW 74.04.012, unless the individual has willfully disregarded the truth in providing information to the office.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 199 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Allison v. Housing Authority of City of Seattle (Washington Supreme Court 1991, 118 Wash. 2d 79)“…ving proximate cause in a retaliatory discharge claim under RCW 49.60.210. Allison v. Housing Auth.,…”
- Washington Water Power Co. v. Washington State Human Rights Commission (Washington Supreme Court 1978, 91 Wash. 2d 62)“…discriminate against a person opposing an unfair practice (RCW 49.60.210) or to aid a violation (RCW 49.60.220).…”
- Lodis v. Corbis Holdings, Inc. (Court of Appeals of Washington 2013, 172 Wash. App. 835)“…ge discrimination under RCW 49.60.180 and retaliation under RCW 49.60.210. Judge Michael Hayden granted Corbis’s…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 9.73.050Admissibility of intercepted communication in evidence.In forcecited in 11 of our articles
Any information obtained in violation of RCW 9.73.030 or pursuant to any order issued under the provisions of RCW 9.73.040 shall be inadmissible in any civil or criminal case in all courts of general or limited jurisdiction in this state, except with the permission of the person whose rights have been violated in an action brought for damages under the provisions of RCW 9.73.030 through 9.73.080, or in a criminal action in which the defendant is charged with a crime, the commission of which would jeopardize national security.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 116 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Wanrow (Washington Supreme Court 1977, 88 Wash. 2d 221)“…epartment of an emergency telephone call, on the basis that RCW 9.73.050 and RCW 9.73.090 which authorize the re…”
- State v. Rupe (Washington Supreme Court 1984, 101 Wash. 2d 664)“…find that this statement violated the terms of the statute. RCW 9.73.050 provides that information obtained in v…”
- State v. Fjermestad (Washington Supreme Court 1990, 114 Wash. 2d 828)“…At the time RCW 9.73.040 was enacted, the Legislature added RCW 9.73.050 4 which deals with admissibility of *…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 9.73.060Violating right of privacy—Civil action—Liability for damages.In forcecited in 14 of our articles
Any person who, directly or by means of a detective agency or any other agent, violates the provisions of this chapter shall be subject to legal action for damages, to be brought by any other person claiming that a violation of this statute has injured his or her business, his or her person, or his or her reputation. A person so injured shall be entitled to actual damages, including mental pain and suffering endured by him or her on account of violation of the provisions of this chapter, or liquidated damages computed at the rate of one hundred dollars a day for each day of violation, not to exceed one thousand dollars, and a reasonable attorney's fee and other costs of litigation.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 36 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Washington courts read RCW 9.73.060 as supplying civil damages only for conduct chapter 9.73 prohibits. Kearney v. Kearney (1999) held RCW 9.73.050 creates no civil liability for filing illegally recorded material. Dillon v. Seattle Deposition Reporters, LLC (2014) reversed summary judgment on secretly transcribed calls.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Wanrow (Washington Supreme Court 1977, 88 Wash. 2d 221)“…case under RCW 9.73.050; there is no civil liability under RCW 9.73.060; and, there is no criminal liability un…”
- Kearney v. Kearney (Court of Appeals of Washington 1999, 95 Wash. App. 405)✓A father sued a guardian ad litem, an evaluator and an attorney under RCW 9.73.060 for filing transcripts of calls with his children that his estranged wife taped; the court held the act creates liability only for recording or intercepting, not filing, and affirmed dismissal.
- Dillon v. Seattle Deposition Reporters, LLC (Court of Appeals of Washington 2014, 179 Wash. App. 41)“…act is a gross misdemeanor and is also actionable in tort. RCW 9.73.060, .080. “We engage in a four-pronged ana…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 9.73.080Penalties.In forcecited in 16 of our articles
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any person who violates RCW 9.73.030 is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. (2) Any person who knowingly alters, erases, or wrongfully discloses any recording in violation of RCW 9.73.090(1)(c) is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 13 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Wanrow (Washington Supreme Court 1977, 88 Wash. 2d 221)“…9.73.090, which opens with a waiver of RCW 9.73.030 through RCW 9.73.080, [9] i.e., the recording is not unlaw…”
- State v. Williams (Washington Supreme Court 1980, 94 Wash. 2d 531)✓ATF agents recorded a suspect's conversations with an informant and undercover agents with only one party's consent. The court assumed without deciding that the RCW 9.73.080 criminal penalty may not reach federal agents, but held the tapes were still inadmissible in state court.
- State v. Clark (Washington Supreme Court 2007, 916 P.2d 384)“…Violation of RCW 9.73.030 constitutes a gross misdemeanor, RCW 9.73.080, and may also result in civil liability…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
United States Code Title 18
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 418 of our articles
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who— intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when— such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,045 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Griggs-Ryan v. Smith (1990) applied the Section 2511(2)(d) prior-consent exception, treating a tenant repeatedly told that all incoming calls were taped as having impliedly consented. United States v. United States District Court (1972) read the then-current Section 2511(3) as conferring no presidential surveillance power.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511)✓The Attorney General authorized a warrantless 1970 national security wiretap that caught the plaintiff's calls; the Court held the since-repealed Section 2511(3) disclaimer left the tap lawful under Title III, and that Mitchell had qualified immunity.
- United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297)✓The Attorney General approved warrantless wiretaps on members of a domestic group accused of bombing a CIA office; the Court read Section 2511(3) as a congressional disclaimer conferring no surveillance power, then held the Fourth Amendment required prior judicial approval.
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Dallas police used, in an internal affairs probe of an officer, calls private parties allegedly intercepted illegally; assuming that was unlawful, the Fifth Circuit held Section 2517(1) and (2) allowed the disclosure and use, defeating the Section 2511(1)(c) and (d) claims.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- RCW 9.73.030 - Intercepting, Recording, or Divulging Private Communications(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 9.73.050 - Admissibility of Intercepted Communications(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 9.73.060 - Civil Damages for Privacy Violations(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 9.73.080 - Criminal Penalties(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 9A.44.115 - Voyeurism(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 49.60 - Washington Law Against Discrimination(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- Washington State Human Rights Commission(hum.wa.gov).gov
- Washington Department of Labor and Industries(lni.wa.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. Section 2511 - Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)
- National Labor Relations Board - Key Reference Materials(nlrb.gov).gov