WA · state guide
Washington background screening law
What is different here
- The salary threshold is $20,000, and it reaches effectively every job in the state. It is a quarter of the federal figure and lower than almost anywhere else.
- Raising the salary does not lift everything. The subsection that lifts the threshold exempts only some of the restrictions. Juvenile records and medical debt remain barred at any salary, for any position.
- Washington does not bar arrest-only reporting. Arrest, indictment and conviction sit on one seven-year clock with no acquittal or dismissal provision. This is the trap in the state, and it runs the opposite way from most of the rest of the country.
- The Fair Chance Act now reaches private employers, and the size threshold is phasing in rather than switching on: fifteen or more employees from 1 July 2026, everyone else from 1 January 2027.
- The state repository is open. Washington is one of the states where a statewide criminal history check is a real product rather than an assembly of county pulls.
How the courts here are organised
Washington has 39 counties, and unlike California or New York it also has a statewide criminal history repository that a screening provider can actually use. The Washington State Patrol maintains it, and a public-facing service fronts it. That combination is rarer than it sounds: a state with a usable repository and a comparatively small number of counties is the easy case for court-record selection, not the hard one.
The interesting part of Washington is therefore not how hard the records are to reach. It is what the state forbids you to do with them once you have them, which is more than almost anywhere else.
| Counties | 39 |
|---|---|
| Statewide repository | Washington State Patrol, reachable by screening providers |
| Public-facing front end | WATCH |
| Court organisation | Superior courts on county lines, with district and municipal courts below |
| Statewide search | A real product, not an assembly of county pulls |
Washington’s ease of access is exactly why the content restrictions carry more weight here than the coverage question does. In a state where the records are hard to reach, the risk is a missed record. In Washington, where they are not, the risk is a record reported that the state does not permit to be reported at all.
That is a different failure mode and it needs a different control. County coverage is a question of whether the search was pointed at the right places. Content compliance is a question of what the search was allowed to return once it got there, and no amount of coverage diligence answers it.
The federal baseline
Federal law sets the floor here as it does everywhere. It is at 15 U.S.C. §1681 et seq., it binds the agency and the employer separately, and it does not vary by state. The FCRA article covers it section by section, including the seven-year limits, the salary threshold and the adverse action sequence, so that this page does not restate any of it.
What follows is only the overlay: what Washington adds on top of that floor, and where it departs from it.
What Washington law adds
Its own consumer reporting statute
RCW ch. 19.182, enacted in 1993 and amended as recently as 2025. It adds restrictions the federal statute does not contain, and they are substantial: a categorical bar on medical debt, a categorical bar on juvenile records for anyone 21 or older, its own salary threshold, and a pre-adverse-action duty that reaches current employees as well as applicants.
RCW ch. 19.182 · RCW 19.182.040
Ban-the-box
The Fair Chance Act reaches private employers explicitly, and its size threshold is phasing in rather than applying at once: employers with fifteen or more employees are covered from 1 July 2026, and employers below that from 1 January 2027. The trigger is a determination that the applicant is otherwise qualified plus a conditional offer. Employers may not advertise in a way that excludes people with records, and may not keep a policy that automatically or categorically excludes them. No tangible adverse action may rest on an arrest record or a juvenile conviction record at all, with a narrow exception for an adult arrest where the person is on bail or personal recognizance pending trial. Adult convictions require a legitimate business reason, notice, a two-business-day hold open and a written reasoned decision.
RCW ch. 49.94 · RCW 49.94.005(4) · RCW 49.94.020(6)
Lookback limits
Seven years from disposition, release or parole for arrest, indictment or conviction of an adult. Bankruptcies run ten years. Suits and judgments, paid tax liens, collections and other adverse items each run seven.
RCW 19.182.040(1)(e)
Non-conviction reporting
Not barred, and this is the trap in the state. Subsection (1)(e) treats arrest, indictment and conviction identically on a single seven-year clock. There is no acquittal provision and no dismissal provision. Washington does not prohibit arrest-only reporting, which puts it with Texas and against California, New York and Michigan. A separate chapter restricts how agencies disseminate non-conviction records, but that is a rule on the source rather than on the screening provider, and it does not change what may be reported.
RCW 19.182.040(1)(e) · RCW ch. 10.97
Salary threshold
$20,000. Subsection (2) lifts subsections (1)(a) through (e) and (h) above that figure, and does not lift (1)(f) or (1)(g). Juvenile records and medical debt therefore remain barred at every salary.
RCW 19.182.040(2)(c)
Juvenile records
Barred where the subject is 21 or older, with no exception and no salary band that lifts it. This is the restriction the threshold discussion above turns on, and it is one of the two Washington bars that apply to every position regardless of pay.
RCW 19.182.040(1)(f)
Medical debt
Barred outright, with no exception and no salary band that lifts it. The second of the two unconditional bars.
RCW 19.182.040(1)(g)
Cannabis
Discrimination in initial hiring on off-the-job cannabis use, or on a screening test showing only nonpsychoactive metabolites, is unlawful. The exceptions are narrow and specific: a position requiring a federal background investigation or security clearance, law enforcement, fire and other first responders, corrections, airline and aerospace, and safety-sensitive positions identified before the application. The protection covers initial hiring and does not extend to current employees.
RCW 49.44.240
Credit checks
Restricted to circumstances where the information is substantially job related and the employer’s reasons are disclosed in writing, or where it is required by law. Washington is not among the states that bar employment credit checks outright, but the job-relatedness test and the written-reasons duty do real work.
RCW 19.182.020(2)(c)
Automated decision law
None. No Washington statute regulates automated hiring decisions, and no bill has passed. The nearest chapter on the subject governs facial recognition by government agencies, which is accountability legislation rather than employment screening.
RCW ch. 43.386
Clean slate
None. Washington has not enacted automatic record clearance, and this is a confirmed negative rather than an absence of evidence. A frequently cited 2023 bill on the subject was a firearms and local-government measure that died in committee and is not a clean-slate law. Relief continues to run through the set-aside process, which requires a petition.
RCW 9.94A.640
The statute that surprises people
The threshold that does not lift everything
RCW 19.182.040(2)(c)
Washington’s employment threshold is $20,000, which is a quarter of the federal figure and effectively every job in the state. Most summaries stop there, because the number is the striking part.
The structural point is what the threshold actually lifts. Subsection (2) exempts subsections (1)(a) through (e) and (h) from the threshold. It does not exempt (1)(f), the bar on juvenile records where the subject is 21 or older, and it does not exempt (1)(g), the bar on medical debt. Those two therefore survive at any salary, for any position, and there is no pay band that turns them off.
That distinction is worth leading with because the two errors compound. A provider that has the threshold wrong at $100,000, which is what the live page for this state currently says, will also assume that a high enough salary clears the whole subsection. It does not clear the two bars that matter most.
Reporting limits at a glance
Every figure below is against Washington law. Where a row says “federal only”, the state has set nothing and 15 U.S.C. §1681c governs.
| Dimension | Limit | Source and qualification |
|---|---|---|
| Salary threshold | $20,000 | RCW 19.182.040(2)(c). Against a federal figure of $75,000. Reaches effectively every job in the state. |
| What the threshold lifts | Partly | RCW 19.182.040(2). Lifts (1)(a) to (e) and (h) only. Juvenile records and medical debt are not lifted at any salary. |
| Lookback, arrest, indictment and conviction | 7 years | RCW 19.182.040(1)(e), from disposition, release or parole. One clock for all three. |
| Lookback, non-conviction | 7 years | RCW 19.182.040(1)(e). No categorical bar and no acquittal or dismissal provision, which is the opposite of California and New York. |
| Juvenile records | Barred at 21 or older | RCW 19.182.040(1)(f). No exception, no salary band. |
| Medical debt | Barred | RCW 19.182.040(1)(g). No exception, no salary band. |
| Bankruptcies | 10 years | RCW 19.182.040(1)(a). |
| Judgments, liens, collections | 7 years | RCW 19.182.040(1)(b) to (d) and (h). |
| Cannabis, off-duty use | Protected in initial hiring | RCW 49.44.240. Narrow exceptions; does not extend to current employees. |
| Credit checks | Job-related and disclosed | RCW 19.182.020(2)(c). Substantially job related, with the employer’s reasons disclosed in writing, or required by law. |
| Fair Chance Act coverage | Phasing in | RCW ch. 49.94. Private employers with 15 or more employees from 1 July 2026; all others from 1 January 2027. |
Adverse action here
The federal sequence applies: pre-adverse action notice with the report and the summary of rights, a reasonable opportunity to respond, then the adverse action notice. The FCRA article sets it out in full.
Washington adds its own pre-adverse-action duty, and it is broader than the federal one in a way that catches providers out. RCW 19.182.020(2)(d) requires the identity of the consumer reporting agency, a description of the consumer’s rights, and a reasonable opportunity to respond. It reaches applicants and current employees alike, so an employment decision about an existing member of staff is inside it.
The Fair Chance Act then imposes a separate sequence on top, with a two-business-day hold open and a written reasoned decision for adult convictions. Where the employer is covered by both, both apply. Washington is not a state where the federal sequence plus a letter satisfies the obligation.
There is no private right of action under the Fair Chance Act. The remedy is the one the statute provides, which is a matter of how enforcement reaches an employer rather than whether it does.
Screening in Washington: what your process needs
- Confirm the salary threshold is $20,000 and not $100,000. The live page for this state carries the wrong figure, so any configuration inherited from it is wrong.
- Confirm the juvenile-records bar and the medical-debt bar are applied at every salary, not just below the threshold. These are the two Washington restrictions the threshold does not reach.
- Confirm the search does not treat the seven-year rule as covering non-conviction items only. Washington runs one clock for arrest, indictment and conviction, so an old conviction is reportable for seven years and a recent arrest is too.
- Confirm no state-specific bar has been borrowed from California or New York. The most common Washington error is applying an arrest prohibition that does not exist here.
- Confirm the pre-adverse-action notice includes the agency identity, a description of rights and a real opportunity to respond, and that it is sent for current employees as well as applicants.
- If the employer is a covered private employer under the Fair Chance Act, confirm the process has a documented legitimate business reason, a two-business-day hold open and a written reasoned decision for any adult conviction.
- Confirm the cannabis protection is applied at the point of initial hiring, and that any safety-sensitive exception was identified before the application rather than after a test came back positive.
- Check whether any posting excludes people with records, including indirectly. The Fair Chance Act reaches advertising and standing policy, not only individual decisions.
Related states
What we do
Washington is the state where coverage is the easy part and content is the hard part. The repository is open and the counties are few, so the risk is not a missed record, it is a record reported that the statute does not allow. Getting the threshold right is the first step, and knowing what the threshold does not lift is the second.
Sources
- RCW ch. 19.182, Fair Credit Reporting Act
- RCW 19.182.020, §19.182.040
- RCW ch. 49.94, Fair Chance Act
- RCW 49.44.240, cannabis and employment
- RCW ch. 10.97, criminal history record information
- RCW ch. 43.386, facial recognition
- RCW 9.94A.640, vacation of record of conviction
- RCW ch. 19.373, My Health My Data
- Washington State Patrol, Washington Access to Criminal History
Last reviewed 23 September 2026. This page is checked on a quarterly cycle, because state screening law changes every legislative session. Nothing here is legal advice; see the terms of use.