Senate committee hears bill to expand Washington’s Fair Chance hiring rules

Engrossed House Bill 17 47, which would expand protections for applicants and employees under the Washington Fair Chance Act, was read into the record and discussed at a public hearing of the Senate Labor & Commerce Committee.

Committee staff member Susan Jones summarized the bill: “Under the bill, an employer may not automatically exclude an individual with a criminal record from an employment position. The employer must make a conditional offer of employment before requesting or obtaining information about an applicant’s criminal record.” Jones also described timing and penalty provisions included in the bill and noted implementation dates in the text: the act would apply beginning 07/01/2026 to employers with 15 or more employees, and beginning 01/01/2027 to employers with fewer than 15 employees.

Sponsor Representative Lillian Ortiz‑Self framed the proposal as an expansion of existing local practices and a compromise with business. Representative Ortiz‑Self said the measure “brings consistency across the state of Washington” and that the bill was negotiated with business groups so it would be “business friendly and worker friendly.” She emphasized that the proposal does not force employers to hire applicants with conviction histories: employers “can still turn them down,” she told the committee.

Local governments and employers offered mixed testimony. Spokane City Council President Pro Tem Paul Dillon said Spokane’s local “Ban the Box” law and implementation experience supported the approach: expanding fair‑chance hiring “limits the barriers to accessing employment” and helps address homelessness by removing hiring barriers, he said. Business witnesses described precautions and sector limits. Brad Tower, representing Community Bankers of Washington, asked the committee to consider bank‑specific constraints driven by federal regulators and said small community banks may face higher vetting costs.

Corporate and nonprofit proponents described active use of conditional‑offer background checks. Nan Gibson of JPMorgan Chase said her company “conduct[s] individualized assessments only after a conditional offer of employment” and encouraged other employers to adopt similar practices. Jim Campbell, executive chef at the Rainier Club, said many employers already wait until later in hiring to run background checks: “It’s not worth spending money for a background report unless the job candidate is really the person we want,” he said, adding that the bill standardizes a “legitimate business reason” test that employers already apply in practice.

Formerly incarcerated workers and reentry advocates urged enactment. Sofia Thomas of Living with Conviction said she was denied jobs “not because I wasn’t qualified, but because of my record,” and asked the committee to pass the bill to allow applicants to be evaluated on current qualifications. Civil Survival policy manager Kelly Olsen noted the bill “updates Washington’s Fair Chance Act to ensure background checks occur only after a conditional offer” and stressed the measure includes phased implementation and no private right of action.

The committee did not take a final vote during the hearing. Susan Jones noted the bill’s House passage figures when she read the report: “It passed the House 56 to 40.” The bill also references a Senate companion that was not heard in committee, according to staff.

If advanced by the committee, the bill would change when employers may seek criminal history, add procedural steps before a tangible adverse action, and increase maximum administrative penalties that the Attorney General’s Office may pursue. The bill text sets a two‑business‑day window for applicants to respond to a proposed adverse action and specifies documentation employers must provide before finalizing a rescission of a conditional offer.

Supporters argued the change would expand the qualified applicant pool and reduce recidivism by making employment more accessible; some business witnesses urged clarifying sectoral exemptions and operational impacts. Committee members signaled follow‑up questions and requests for additional information about enforcement history and sector specific concerns.