Leverage our broad expertise to implement screening packages specifically geared towards your industry.
FairScreen offers a comprehensive menu of over 100 service choices for our clients. These include:
Download our whitepaper to learn simple strategies to reduce the potential for bias in your screening program.
Employers who hire in Washington State should review their procedures to ensure compliance
Washington’s Legislature has passed House Bill 1747, which significantly tightens and expands employer obligations under the state’s Fair Chance Act (a “ban-the-box” statute), with the majority of changes taking effect July 1, 2026 for employers with 15 or more employees (smaller employers follow on January 1, 2027). While many covered practices echo what some municipalities already impose (e.g., Seattle), HB 1747 elevates the standard statewide. Below is a breakdown of the new requirements, timing rules, assessment obligations, exemptions, and penalty risk—all from the employer’s perspective.
One of the first visible changes under HB 1747 concerns how employers advertise and structure initial applicant materials.
Employers may not include in job advertisements any language that excludes or discourages applicants with criminal records (e.g., “no felons,” “clear background required,” “no criminal history”) because such statements would effectively preclude people with records from applying.
Similarly, application forms (or other pre-offer screening materials) may not include any question asking whether a candidate has a criminal record. That prohibition already existed under the earlier Fair Chance Act, and HB 1747 retains and reinforces it.
If an employer’s recruiting materials or process mention that a background check will be required at some point, the employer must include a written disclosure to the applicant summarizing the state’s Fair Chance Act requirements and must provide a copy of the Attorney General’s Fair Chance Act Guide. This disclosure must also be given if an applicant voluntarily discloses criminal history during an interview process.
These changes make clear that Washington intends to push criminal-history screening further downstream in the hiring process, protecting the applicant’s opportunity to compete on qualifications first.
Perhaps the most important new restriction concerns when an employer may lawfully seek or use criminal background information.
Under HB 1747, an employer may not inquire into or obtain criminal history information (whether by asking the applicant, via a background check vendor, or otherwise) until after the employer has:
determined that the applicant is otherwise qualified for the position (i.e., meets the noncriminal selection criteria), and
extended a conditional (contingent) offer of employment to that applicant.
This is a more stringent threshold than the prior statute, which permitted criminal record inquiry after the employer initially determined qualification (but before an offer).
If an applicant reveals criminal history voluntarily during an interview (i.e., prior to a conditional offer), the employer must immediately provide the written disclosure and the AGO Guide, but still cannot take adverse action based solely on that disclosure until after the conditional offer stage.
Putting it another way: employers must postpone all criminal background checking until after they’ve made the conditional offer to an otherwise qualified candidate. That means adjusting recruitment workflows, vendor arrangements, and internal checklists.
HB 1747 imposes strict constraints on when and how an employer may rescind a conditional offer or take other “tangible adverse employment actions” (e.g., refusing to hire, termination, suspension, demotion) on the basis of criminal history.
An employer cannot take adverse action based on an arrest record (i.e., a pending charge without conviction) or juvenile conviction record. The sole narrow exception is a pending adult arrest where the individual is out on bail or release on their own recognizance pending trial.
Also off limits is the use of juvenile adjudications or convictions in employment decisions at any stage.
The employer may only rely on an applicant’s adult conviction record for an adverse action if it can identify a “legitimate business reason” for that decision. That term is defined in the new law.
In doing so, the employer must conduct and document an individualized assessment, considering factors including (but not limited to):
The seriousness and nature of the underlying conduct;
The number and types of convictions;
The time that has elapsed since the conviction (excluding incarceration periods);
Any verifiable evidence of rehabilitation, good conduct, work experience, training, education, etc.;
The specific duties and responsibilities of the job in question;
The context (place and manner) in which the position is to be performed.
If, after that assessment, the employer is inclined to take adverse action, it must:
Notify the applicant or employee in writing of the specific conviction(s) forming the basis of the preliminary decision;
Hold the position open (i.e. pause final decision) for at least two business days (sometimes referred to as a “waiting period”) to give the individual opportunity to respond, correct errors, or present mitigating or rehabilitative evidence.
Finally, if the employer proceeds with the adverse decision, it must provide a written explanation documenting the decision, how each of the relevant factors were weighed, and why the conviction had a negative impact on job fitness, risk, property, reputation, or other relevant business considerations.
Importantly, an employer cannot use a “blanket policy” or automatic disqualification of candidates with records; the law forbids categorical exclusions.
HB 1747 retains and modifies certain exemptions under RCW 49.94 (the Fair Chance Act). Notably, the law generally does not apply to:
Employers hiring individuals who will have unsupervised access to children or vulnerable adults, or vulnerable populations;
Entities (public or private) that are legally required or permitted under state or federal law (or regulation) to consider criminal records (e.g., certain licensing regimes, regulated industries)
Law enforcement and criminal justice agencies
Employers under federal contract that already disallow hiring persons with certain criminal records under the contract terms
Employers should map their roles against these exceptions carefully to determine which positions remain subject to the full scheme.
Under the existing Fair Chance Act, enforcement rests with the Washington Attorney General (AGO), not via a private right of action. That remains the case under HB 1747, but the statute heightens the penalty regime.
First violation: AGO may issue a notice of violation and offer agency assistance (or impose a monetary penalty up to $1,500, for first-time or non-egregious infractions) Second violation: Up to $3,000 penalty Third and subsequent violations: Up to $15,000 per violation per individual aggrieved. That is a dramatic increase from the prior maximum of $1,000 per violation. Enforcement is per applicant or employee affected, so multiple violations in hiring cycles could aggregate.
Because the AGO employs a “stepped enforcement approach,” your first infraction may be met with warning or education, but repeat or reckless violations carry serious risk.
Reengineer hiring flows now. The time to ask about criminal history shifts to post-conditional offer, so background check vendors, applicant tracking systems, and HR workflows must be retooled.
Strip job postings and applications of any phrasing that excludes individuals with records or prompts early disclosure of criminal history.
Adopt a documented individualized assessment protocol, train decision-makers to apply it, and build templates or forms for the required inquiries, notices, and decisions.
Implement a hold-period (two business days) and notice procedure before taking adverse action based on a conviction.
Review which roles are exempt (e.g., roles involving children or vulnerable adults, regulated industries) and maintain separate policies where needed.
Update compliance manuals and train staff, particularly recruiters, HR personnel, hiring managers, and legal/compliance teams.
Monitor for changes and enforcement guidance from the AGO once HB 1747 is in force.
In sum, HB 1747 moves Washington’s Fair Chance Act toward a more robust “ban-the-box plus” model—pushing criminal history evaluation later in hiring, imposing rigorous process checks before adverse decisions, and raising penalties to impose real bite. Employers should begin remapping their hiring systems now to avoid missteps once the law becomes operative.
Fair Screen is a background screening company dedicated to helping employers fairly use criminal records in the hiring process. Contact Us to learn more about how a well-tuned screening process can speed the time to hire, include more job applicants, and help ensure your consistency and compliance. Help us make a difference!
The foregoing content is not given as legal advice but is instead offered for informational purposes only. Fair Screen is not a law firm and therefore cannot offer legal advice. We always recommend speaking with an attorney who is knowledgeable about your company’s individual circumstances prior to making any hiring decisions or policy changes. Fair Screen makes no assurances regarding the accuracy or completeness of this content.