HB 1747 expands Washington’s Fair Chance Act, which regulates how employers may use criminal history in hiring and employment decisions. The bill broadens the definitions of criminal records covered by the law, including adult conviction records, arrest records, and juvenile conviction records, and clarifies what counts as an employer, an otherwise qualified applicant, a legitimate business reason, and a tangible adverse employment action.
The bill generally prohibits employers from asking about or obtaining criminal history until after determining that an applicant is otherwise qualified for the position. It also bars job ads that exclude people with criminal records, prohibits blanket policies that automatically screen out applicants with records, and limits adverse employment actions based on arrest records or juvenile records. For adult conviction records, an employer may take action only if it has a legitimate business reason and must document the factors considered, give notice, and provide at least two business days for the applicant or employee to respond or explain the record before making a final decision.
HB 1747 also creates enforcement provisions for the Attorney General’s office, including authority to investigate, educate, issue civil investigative demands, adopt rules, and seek penalties, costs, and attorney’s fees. The bill sets a stepped enforcement approach that begins with education and warnings for first-time or de minimis violations, then allows monetary penalties for repeat violations, with penalties payable to affected applicants or employees when identifiable. It also includes exemptions for certain positions and employers, such as jobs involving unsupervised access to children or vulnerable persons, law enforcement and criminal justice agencies, certain federally regulated positions, and employers legally required to consider criminal history.
The bill’s impact on state law is to strengthen and expand the existing fair chance hiring framework in Washington by adding procedural protections for applicants and employees with criminal records and by increasing state enforcement authority. It affects private employers and some public entities subject to the act, while preserving exceptions for sensitive or legally regulated jobs. The bill also phases in coverage based on employer size, applying first to larger employers and later to smaller employers.
Overall, the bill appears to have had mixed but ultimately successful support. It passed the House and Senate, but both floor votes were relatively close, indicating meaningful opposition. The committee votes were more favorable, suggesting support among labor and workplace standards advocates, while the narrower floor margins point to continuing concern about the bill’s impact on employer discretion and hiring practices. The main points of contention appear to be the added compliance burdens on employers, the limits on using criminal history in hiring, and the scope of penalties and enforcement authority granted to the Attorney General.
HB 1747 amends Washington’s Fair Chance Act to impose additional restrictions on employer use of criminal history in hiring and employment decisions, expand covered records and definitions, and create a new enforcement section with Attorney General authority to investigate, educate, seek records, adopt rules, and impose or pursue penalties. It changes state law by limiting when employers may ask about criminal records, prohibiting categorical exclusions, requiring individualized review and documentation before adverse action, and establishing phased applicability by employer size and exemptions for certain sensitive or regulated positions.
The bill received enough support to pass both chambers, but the vote margins were close on the floor, indicating a divided response. Committee votes were more favorable, suggesting support from lawmakers aligned with labor and workplace protections. The overall sentiment appears generally supportive of fair-chance hiring reforms, but with notable reservations from members concerned about employer compliance obligations, hiring flexibility, and enforcement penalties.
The main contention centers on whether the bill goes too far in restricting employers’ ability to screen applicants and employees with criminal records. Opponents or skeptics are likely concerned about the ban on early criminal-history inquiries, the limits on using arrest and juvenile records, the requirement to hold positions open for a response period, and the Attorney General’s enforcement and penalty authority. Supporters appear focused on reducing barriers to employment for people with records, preventing blanket exclusionary hiring practices, and ensuring individualized, documented decision-making.