SHB 1313
In CommitteeHouse
Mass layoffs
Addressing mass layoffs, relocations, and terminations.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill creates new requirements for large employers in Washington to give advance notice before major job cuts or relocations, provide compensation and support to affected workers, and report demographic data to help ensure fair treatment. It also strengthens protections against unfair use of noncompete and nondisclosure agreements for laid-off workers.
- Requires employers with 100+ employees at a single site to give 60 days’ advance written notice before a mass layoff (50+ workers in 30 days), relocation (100+ miles away), or termination of operations.
- Mandates that notices include a statement explaining why the employer considered alternatives to layoffs and why the layoff is necessary, with supporting data.
- Imposes liability on employers who fail to give notice: up to 60 days of wages and benefits (e.g., pension, health coverage) for each affected employee, reduced by certain payments already made.
- Authorizes civil penalties of up to $500 per day for failure to give notice, unless the employer pays required compensation within 3 weeks.
- Requires employers to provide affected employees with an anonymous demographic survey (collected by the state) to assess whether layoffs disproportionately impact protected groups.
- Requires employers to give affected employees access to a rapid response presentation (at least 90 minutes) by workforce development partners to explain unemployment benefits, job search services, and other support programs.
- Bars employers from using noncompetition agreements against workers laid off due to mass layoffs unless they provide salary continuation during the noncompete period—or if the employer failed to give required notice.
- Prohibits employers from using non-disclosure agreements to prevent employees from discussing mass layoffs as a condition of receiving severance or compensation under this law.
Who is affected
- Employees at covered establishments — Employees at large workplaces (100+ workers) who face job loss due to mass layoffs, relocation, or termination; they gain rights to advance notice, severance-like compensation, and access to support services.
- Employers of covered establishments — Businesses operating large facilities (100+ employees) must provide advance notice, pay compensation for failed notice, and comply with new reporting and access requirements.
- State and local government agencies — State and local government agencies (e.g., Employment Security Department, local workforce boards) gain new responsibilities to receive notices, conduct surveys, and provide support services to affected workers.
- Workers from protected classes — Workers from protected classes (e.g., based on race, gender, age) gain protections against disproportionate impacts through anonymous data collection and transparency requirements.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for concerns
Potential Benefits (5)
Requires employers to include in notices a detailed explanation of why alternatives to layoffs were considered and why the layoff is necessary, with supporting data. This promotes accountability and may reduce arbitrary or discriminatory decisions, benefiting workers and communities by encouraging more thoughtful workforce planning.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 3(2)(b)authorizes civil actions by employees (including class actions) to enforce rights under the law, with attorney’s fees available to prevailing plaintiffs. This strengthens access to justice for workers who might otherwise lack resources to challenge employer violations.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 10Clarifies that compensation paid under Sec. 5 is not considered wages for unemployment benefit purposes—ensuring laid-off workers do not lose UI eligibility due to receiving severance-like compensation. This protects workers’ access to critical safety net benefits.
FinancialLean peopleRef: Sec. 14Voidifies noncompetition agreements for workers laid off due to mass layoffs *if* the employer failed to give required notice. This prevents employers from using NDAs as leverage to silence or restrict workers who were already wronged by lack of notice, supporting mobility and reemployment.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 16(1)(d)Prohibits coordination among competing employers on mass layoffs (e.g., timing, severance), treating such coordination as an unfair trade practice. While rare in practice, this deters anti-competitive collusion that could depress wages or delay rehiring.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 17
Potential Concerns (5)
Employers face significant liability for failure to provide 60-day notice: up to 60 days of wages and benefits (including pension, health coverage, etc.) per affected employee. This creates a strong financial disincentive for employers to cut corners on notice, directly benefiting workers who receive compensation they would otherwise lose. However, the cost burden falls primarily on employers, not taxpayers, and the compensation goes directly to affected workers.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 5Civil penalties of up to $500 per day for failure to give notice (reduced if compensation is paid within 3 weeks) are paid into the unemployment trust fund. While this offsets some state costs, the penalties are designed to compensate for lost unemployment benefits and deter violations—benefiting workers indirectly by strengthening enforcement and trust fund solvency.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 6Anonymous demographic surveys on laid-off workers help identify disproportionate impacts on protected classes (e.g., race, gender, age), enabling state oversight and potential corrective action. This strengthens equal protection and transparency, especially for historically marginalized groups.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 7Mandated 90-minute rapid response presentations by workforce development partners provide laid-off workers with timely access to unemployment benefits, job search services, and support programs—reducing economic desperation and associated social harms like crime or mental health crises.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 8Bars employers from using non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) to silence workers about mass layoffs as a condition of receiving severance or compensation. This empowers workers to speak publicly about layoffs, promoting transparency and collective awareness—especially important for vulnerable workers who may otherwise be coerced into silence.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 13(1)(b) & Sec. 15
Who Is Most Affected
Employees at covered establishments gain enforceable rights to advance notice, compensation for violations, rapid support access, and protection from retaliatory NDAs. These benefits are most meaningful for hourly and lower-wage workers who lack savings or alternative employment options.
Large employers face new administrative, financial, and legal risks: notice requirements, compensation liability, civil penalties, and potential class-action exposure. Small and mid-sized firms are exempt, so impact is concentrated on large, resource-rich employers.
State and local agencies (e.g., Employment Security Department, workforce boards) gain new responsibilities for enforcement, data collection, and rapid response coordination. This increases administrative costs but strengthens workforce stabilization capacity.
Workers from protected classes (e.g., people of color, women, older workers) benefit from anonymous demographic data collection and transparency, enabling oversight of potential bias in layoffs. However, the bill does not mandate corrective action if disparities are found.