SSB 5336
In CommitteeSenate
Isolated employees
Concerning protections for isolated employees.
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 strengthens protections for workers who regularly work alone—especially janitors, security guards, and hotel staff—by requiring employers to provide training, panic buttons, and policies to prevent sexual harassment and assault, and to report compliance annually. It also gives the Department of Labor & Industries authority to enforce these requirements through investigations and civil penalties.
- Requires employers of isolated employees to adopt a sexual harassment policy and provide mandatory training for managers, supervisors, and isolated employees on preventing sexual assault, harassment, and discrimination, plus whistleblower protections and panic button use.
- Mandates that employers provide each isolated employee with a panic button (a device to summon immediate on-scene assistance), with special guidance for employers with 50 or fewer employees.
- Requires property services contractors to submit annual reports to the Department of Labor & Industries, including dates of policy adoption, training participation numbers, and work location details for janitorial services performed by isolated employees.
- Empowers the Department of Labor & Industries to investigate complaints, issue civil penalties (up to $10,000 per repeat willful violation), and require record production.
- Defines 'isolated employee' narrowly to include janitors, security guards, hotel/motel housekeepers, and room service attendants who spend most of their work time alone or without a coworker present.
Who is affected
- Isolated employees — Janitors, security guards, hotel/motel housekeepers, and room service attendants who regularly work alone or without a coworker present are directly protected by new safety and training requirements.
- Employers of isolated employees — Businesses that employ isolated workers (e.g., hotels, motels, retail stores, property services contractors, and security firms) must adopt new policies, provide training, supply panic buttons, and report compliance data annually.
- Property services contractors — Property services contractors who provide commercial janitorial services must submit annual reports on training, policy adoption, and work locations where isolated employees perform services.
- Department of Labor & Industries — The Department of Labor & Industries gains new authority to investigate violations, issue civil penalties, and require documentation from employers.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Mandatory panic buttons and training on harassment, discrimination, and whistleblower protections directly reduce exposure to violence and retaliation for isolated workers—janitors, hotel housekeepers, and security guards—who are among the most vulnerable to workplace assault and exploitation.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(b)(iii)–(iv); Sec. 1(1)(c); Sec. 1(1)(d)The bill establishes enforceable, individualized rights (e.g., panic button access, training, policy access) with DLI investigation authority and civil penalties—shifting power away from employers and toward vulnerable workers who otherwise lack legal recourse.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(a), (b), (d); Sec. 2(1)–(3)Annual public reporting of work locations and staffing levels for janitorial services increases transparency and enables community oversight—empowering advocacy groups, unions, and local governments to monitor compliance and identify high-risk sites.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(a)(iii)(A)–(B); Sec. 2(2)(b)Explicit inclusion of whistleblower protections and resource lists (EEOC, Washington Human Rights Commission, local advocacy groups) strengthens worker agency and reduces fear of reporting—key for isolated workers who lack peer support.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(b)(iii); Sec. 1(1)(c)DLI’s requirement to issue guidance for small employers on panic button options (e.g., low-cost alternatives, shared units) mitigates cost burden and promotes scalable compliance—though not quantified, this reduces risk of unintended business closures.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(d) (guidance for employers ≤50 employees); Sec. 2(5)
Potential Concerns (3)
Small employers (≤50 employees) face new compliance costs for panic buttons and training, with no state subsidy or phased implementation timeline—though guidance is provided, the burden falls disproportionately on cash-strapped small businesses, especially in service sectors with thin margins.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(d); Sec. 2(3)(a)Civil penalties ($1,000–$10,000 per violation) are deposited into the Supplemental Pension Fund—not directly tied to worker protections—reducing the fiscal incentive for DLI to prioritize enforcement and potentially limiting program scalability over time.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(a); Sec. 2(3)(d)The exemption for licensed security firms creates a regulatory gap: while those firms’ workers may face similar isolation risks, they fall outside the bill’s scope, undermining consistency and potentially shifting risk to unregulated subcontractors.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(d) (exemption for contracted security guard companies licensed under chapter 18.170 RCW)
Who Is Most Affected
Janitors, hotel housekeepers, and room service attendants—often women, immigrants, and low-wage workers—are directly protected from sexual harassment and assault through mandatory tools (panic buttons), training, and enforcement mechanisms. This group has historically faced high rates of abuse with little recourse.
Property services contractors (especially those with 10–50 employees) face new administrative and equipment costs (panic buttons, training, annual reporting), but may benefit from standardized compliance expectations and reduced liability exposure. Large contractors may absorb costs more easily than small firms.
Hotels, motels, and retail employers must invest in training and devices, but gain legal clarity and a defense against negligence claims if they comply. Small hotel/motel owners (≤50 employees) bear disproportionate relative cost burden.
DLI gains new enforcement authority and budgetary flexibility (penalties to Supplemental Pension Fund), but the lack of dedicated funding for program implementation may limit capacity—especially if complaint volume rises significantly.
Unions and advocacy groups (e.g., SEIU, Washington Women’s Lobby) gain new statutory tools to monitor and report violations, increasing their ability to organize and hold employers accountable—especially in non-unionized sectors like housekeeping.