EHB 1747
SignedHouse
Job applicants and employees
Expanding protections for applicants and employees under the Washington fair chance act.
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 strengthens protections for job applicants and employees with criminal records by limiting when and how employers can ask about or use criminal history in hiring and employment decisions. It requires employers to delay criminal background inquiries until after determining a candidate is qualified and making a conditional job offer, and imposes new notice and response requirements before taking adverse action based on adult convictions.
- Expands the definition of 'criminal record' to include citations, arrests, and probable cause statements—even without a conviction.
- Prohibits employers from asking about criminal history or conducting background checks until after determining the applicant is 'otherwise qualified' and making a conditional offer of employment.
- Bars employers from advertising jobs with language that excludes people with criminal records (e.g., 'no felons' or 'no criminal background').
- Requires employers to provide a written notice and at least two business days to respond before taking adverse action based on an adult conviction record, and to include specific documentation explaining the decision.
- Prohibits adverse employment actions based solely on arrest records or juvenile conviction records.
- Strengthens enforcement by the Washington Attorney General, including authority to investigate, issue civil demands, impose administrative penalties (up to $15,000 per violation per person), and pursue lawsuits for damages and attorney fees.
Who is affected
- Job applicants and employees with criminal records — Job applicants and employees with criminal records (including adult convictions, juvenile adjudications, or arrest records) gain stronger protections against automatic exclusion or adverse employment decisions based on their records before a conditional job offer is made.
- Employers (including public agencies, private businesses, staffing agencies, and training programs) — Must follow new rules about when and how to ask about criminal history, how to advertise jobs, and how to make employment decisions based on criminal records—especially regarding adult convictions, and must provide specific notices and opportunities to respond before taking adverse action.
- Employers who fail to comply with the law — May be required to provide documentation, testimony, or documents if investigated for violations, and could face civil penalties if found in violation.
- Job seekers and employees seeking fair consideration — May benefit from increased transparency and fairness in hiring, and have the right to respond to concerns about their record before an employer makes a final decision.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Delays criminal background inquiries until after a conditional offer and requires a meaningful opportunity to respond, significantly improving fair chance for job seekers with records—especially people of color and formerly incarcerated individuals—who face high rates of automatic disqualification.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1), (5)(b)Mandates written, factor-specific explanations for adverse actions based on adult convictions, increasing transparency and enabling individuals to contest errors or demonstrate rehabilitation—reducing arbitrary or discriminatory exclusions.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 2(5)(c)Banning job ads that exclude people with criminal records helps reduce systemic barriers to employment, supporting reintegration and reducing recidivism by expanding access to stable work.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)Increases enforcement authority with escalating penalties ($1,500–$15,000 per aggrieved person) and allows penalties to be paid directly to victims, strengthening deterrence and redress for violations.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 3(2)(b)Prohibits adverse actions based solely on adult convictions unless a 'legitimate business reason' is documented with six specific factors, requiring employers to conduct individualized assessments rather than blanket exclusions—aligning with EEOC guidance and reducing disparate impact.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 2(5)(a)
Potential Concerns (5)
Employers must delay criminal background checks until after a conditional offer, increasing time-to-hire and administrative burden, especially for small businesses with limited HR capacity.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1), (2), (4), (5)(a)-(c)Prohibition on job ads that exclude people with criminal records may limit employers’ ability to express legitimate safety concerns in industries like transportation, warehousing, or security—though such language is already legally suspect under existing fair chance laws, the explicit ban adds compliance risk for employers who use inclusive language in good faith.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)Mandatory two-business-day response window and written explanation requirement before adverse action increases legal exposure and complexity for employers, particularly in high-volume or time-sensitive hiring (e.g., seasonal, shift-based roles).
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(5)(b)-(c)Expanding 'criminal record' to include arrests, citations, and probable cause statements—even without conviction—may unintentionally broaden employer liability for good-faith reliance on incomplete or outdated information, potentially chilling legitimate safety assessments.
Rights & LibertiesLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(1), (3)The bill increases enforcement capacity for the Attorney General but does not allocate new funding, potentially diverting resources from other consumer protection or civil rights priorities.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 3(2)(b)
Who Is Most Affected
Job seekers and employees with criminal records—especially those with arrests, citations, or older convictions—gain stronger procedural protections, increased access to employment, and a right to respond before adverse decisions. This group is disproportionately people of color and low-income, so the impact is strongly positive.
Small and medium-sized employers face new compliance costs (e.g., updating hiring forms, training managers, legal risk). However, large employers and staffing agencies already subject to similar local ordinances (e.g., Seattle, Tacoma) may face minimal incremental cost. Overall, compliance burden is modest but regressive—small businesses without HR staff bear disproportionate relative cost.
The Attorney General gains expanded enforcement tools and discretion to impose escalating penalties, increasing accountability. However, without dedicated funding, this may strain existing resources or shift priorities away from other civil rights enforcement.
Workers’ rights and reentry advocacy groups gain stronger legal tools to challenge discriminatory hiring practices. The bill strengthens their ability to support individuals in disputing unfair denials and holding employers accountable.
Large employers and corporate HR departments may face higher compliance costs but are better resourced to absorb them; they also benefit from reduced legal risk from disparate impact lawsuits under Title VII, as the bill codifies the EEOC’s individualized-assessment standard.