SHB 1672
In CommitteeHouse
Employer technology use
Addressing technology used by employers in the workplace.
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 establishes new rules for how employers in Washington can use electronic monitoring (like cameras or software tracking) and automated decision systems (like AI tools for hiring or performance reviews). It requires transparency, limits invasive practices, and gives employees rights to know how data is used and to challenge errors.
- Employers must meet strict criteria before using electronic monitoring—including necessity, least-invasive methods, and minimal data collection—and must provide 15 days’ advance notice to employees.
- Prohibits monitoring in private areas (e.g., restrooms, locker rooms, homes, personal vehicles) and bans use of facial, gait, or emotion recognition technology.
- Bars employers from requiring employees to install monitoring apps on personal devices or wear/implant tracking devices—except in limited cases tied to essential job functions.
- Restricts use of automated decision systems (e.g., AI tools for hiring, evaluation, or discipline): they cannot be used alone, cannot assess health or emotions, and must be validated by human oversight and a written impact assessment.
- Requires employers to conduct and annually update impact assessments for automated decision systems, including analysis of risks like bias, privacy harm, and economic impacts.
- Grants employees rights to access their own monitoring data, correct errors, and be protected from retaliation for exercising these rights.
Who is affected
- Employees — Employees in Washington state who are subject to employer monitoring or use of automated decision systems will gain new rights to notice, transparency, and protection from invasive or discriminatory practices.
- Employers — Businesses of all sizes—including state agencies, municipalities, and private employers—with one or more employees must comply with new rules governing monitoring and automated decision tools.
- Technology vendors and service providers — Third-party vendors (e.g., software developers, monitoring service providers) who build or operate monitoring or automated decision systems on behalf of employers must follow new data handling and security requirements.
- Workers in high-monitoring or AI-assessed roles — Workers in jobs that involve location tracking, biometric collection, or performance evaluation using AI tools will be most directly impacted by the new restrictions and notice requirements.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Grants employees explicit rights to access and correct monitoring data, empowering them to challenge inaccurate or misleading algorithmic assessments—critical for preventing wrongful discipline or termination based on flawed AI outputs.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 3(2)(k), Sec. 8(3)Prohibits monitoring in private spaces and bans facial/gait/emotion recognition—protecting bodily autonomy, privacy, and freedom from surveillance-based profiling that can disproportionately target marginalized workers.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 4(1)(d)-(e), Sec. 4(2)Bars use of emotion/health-related AI outputs in employment decisions, reducing risk of discrimination against workers with mental health conditions, disabilities, or seeking gender-affirming or reproductive care—aligning with existing anti-discrimination frameworks.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 6(1)(d), Sec. 6(3)Prohibits retaliation for exercising rights under the bill—including requesting data or challenging errors—strengthens worker agency and reduces chilling effects that suppress legitimate complaints about surveillance or unfair evaluation.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 9, Sec. 3(2)(l)Requires bias, privacy, and economic impact assessments for AI tools—while costly, this may reduce long-term legal and reputational risks for employers and promote more equitable hiring/evaluation practices across the state.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 7(1)(e)(i)-(vi)
Potential Concerns (5)
Mandates costly, recurring impact assessments for automated decision systems, which may disproportionately burden small and mid-sized employers without dedicated legal/compliance staff, increasing operational complexity and costs.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 7(1)(e)(vi)Imposes civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation, enforced by L&I, which may create financial risk for small businesses—even for unintentional or technical violations—potentially deterring innovation in HR tech among smaller firms.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 10(5)Restricts use of location tracking on personal devices, which may hinder employers’ ability to monitor compliance in roles where remote or mobile work is essential (e.g., field service, delivery, safety-sensitive jobs), potentially reducing operational flexibility.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 5(1)Prohibits sole reliance on automated decision systems, requiring human corroboration—while beneficial for fairness—may slow hiring and performance review cycles, especially in high-volume or time-sensitive roles, increasing labor costs per hire/evaluation.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 6(2)(a)Shifts enforcement burden to L&I, requiring rulemaking, investigations, and adjudications—potentially straining agency resources and diverting staff from other priority enforcement areas (e.g., wage theft, workplace safety).
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 10(5)
Who Is Most Affected
Low- and middle-wage workers in high-surveillance roles (e.g., warehouse, retail, gig platforms) gain strong protections against invasive monitoring and algorithmic bias—reducing arbitrary discipline, privacy violations, and discriminatory outcomes.
Tech vendors and SaaS providers must redesign or reconfigure products to comply with data minimization, human oversight, and impact assessment requirements—increasing R&D costs but creating long-term market stability and trust.
Small and mid-sized employers face compliance costs (legal review, training, system audits) and potential liability for minor procedural missteps—though large employers already have compliance infrastructure and can absorb costs more easily.
Workers in roles using AI for performance evaluation (e.g., call centers, sales, remote support) gain recourse against opaque or biased scoring—potentially improving fairness and morale, but may face slower promotion cycles due to human oversight requirements.
State and local government agencies (as employers) must comply with the same rules as private firms—potentially increasing HR administrative burdens but also setting a strong public-sector standard for ethical tech use.