Washington's Fair Chance Act in 2026: What Changed for Background Checks on July 1

Washington has had a version of this law since 2018, when it passed a "ban-the-box" statute: the national shorthand for laws that remove the criminal-history checkbox from job applications and delay any background question until an employer has decided the person is otherwise qualified. As of July 1, 2026, the law does much more than ban the box. An employer now can't obtain a criminal record until after a conditional job offer, can't consider arrests or juvenile records at all, and, before turning someone down over a conviction, has to run a documented, individualized review and give the applicant a written notice and a chance to respond. Here's the 2026 picture, verified against the statute and the Attorney General's own guidance.

The TL;DR

• The background check now comes last, not first. For employers with 15 or more employees, criminal history can only be pulled after the applicant is judged otherwise qualified and given a conditional offer (an offer that is final except for the background-check result).
• Some records are off the table entirely. Arrests that didn't lead to a conviction, juvenile records, and convictions that have been vacated or expunged can't be considered at any point.
• Turning someone down over a conviction is now a process, not a decision. The law requires a documented, individualized review of the conviction, a written notice to the applicant, at least two business days for them to respond, and a written explanation if the answer is still no.
• Enforcement belongs to the state. An applicant who believes an employer broke these rules can't sue over it; complaints go to the Washington Attorney General's Office, which investigates and can seek penalties. That has been the design since 2018.
• The penalties just got much bigger. From the old ceilings of $750 and then $1,000, they now run up to $1,500, then $3,000, then $15,000 per person as violations repeat.
• Smaller employers are next. Businesses with fewer than 15 employees come under the same rules on January 1, 2027.

What changed on July 1, 2026

Washington's Fair Chance Act (RCW chapter 49.94) was first enacted in 2018. The 2025 Legislature rewrote it through Engrossed House Bill 1747 (Chapter 71, Laws of 2025), and the new version took effect July 1, 2026 for employers with 15 or more employees.

The table below is the before-and-after: a high-level view of what changed between the 2018 law (in force through June 30, 2026) and the amended law.

Reading the table: a conditional offer is a real job offer with only one condition left: the background check. The applicant has already been chosen; the offer stands unless the check turns up something the employer may lawfully act on. That is the threshold that separates the two eras: in 2018 the check could happen anywhere after "qualified," while now it can only happen after the job has been offered. An individualized assessment means looking at the specific conviction and person rather than applying a blanket "no felonies" rule. "Per person, per violation" means the penalty is counted for each affected applicant or employee separately, so one non-compliant practice applied across many candidates multiplies.

For employers: the compliant hiring sequence, in order

These are the steps a covered employer follows from job posting to final decision, in the order they happen. Where a step works differently than it did before July 1, the matching row of the table above shows the change.

Step 1: Post and interview without touching criminal history

From the job ad through the interviews, criminal history stays out of it entirely. The application can't include a criminal-history question, interviewers can't ask, no background check can be run, and the posting itself can't exclude people with records (no "no felons" or "clean record required" language).

One trigger to know from day one: if an applicant voluntarily brings up their own criminal record at any point, even mid-interview, the employer must immediately give them a written notice of the law's requirements and a copy of the Attorney General's Fair Chance Act Guide. More on that document in Step 3, where it normally comes up.

Sources: RCW 49.94.010 · WA Attorney General: Fair Chance Act

Step 2: Decide the candidate is otherwise qualified, then extend a conditional offer

Only two things unlock the background check: the employer has decided the applicant is otherwise qualified for the job, and it has made an offer of employment conditioned on the results of the criminal-record check. In plain terms, the record comes out only at the very end, after the person has essentially been chosen.

This is the piece that changed most (the first row of the table). The 2018 law already required "otherwise qualified" before any look at criminal history; the 2026 version adds the conditional-offer gate on top, so the check happens after an offer is on the table rather than somewhere in the middle of the process.

Sources: RCW 49.94.010 · RCW 49.94.005 (definitions) · WA Attorney General: Fair Chance Act

Step 3: Disclose the check, and hand over the notice and guide with it

The conditional offer is the moment the employer tells the candidate the job depends on a background check; that disclosure is what makes the offer "conditional." The disclosure carries a new paperwork duty (RCW 49.94.010(8), new in the 2026 amendments): the employer must immediately inform the applicant in writing of the law's core requirements and give them a copy of the Attorney General's "Fair Chance Act Guide for Employers and Job Applicants". In practice, the notice and guide travel with the conditional offer.

The Attorney General posted an updated version of the guide in June 2026; the current edition, available on the AG's Fair Chance Act page linked above, is the one to use.

Sources: RCW 49.94.010 · WA Attorney General: Fair Chance Act

Step 4: Run the check, using only what the law lets you see

Not everything in a background report can be considered; Only an adult conviction that still stands can factor into the decision. Arrests that never led to a conviction, juvenile records, and vacated or expunged convictions are off-limits at every stage (second row of the table); the full list, and the one statutory exception for pending charges, is in the records section below.

If the check comes back clean, or shows only records the law puts off-limits, the conditional offer simply becomes the job if the applicant accepts.

Sources: RCW 49.94.010 · WA Attorney General: Fair Chance Act

Step 5: If a conviction gives you pause, run the documented individualized assessment

An employer thinking about withdrawing the offer over a standing adult conviction can't simply decide the conviction is disqualifying. The law requires a "legitimate business reason," which means weighing and documenting a specific set of factors:

1. The seriousness of the conduct underlying the conviction.
2. The number and types of convictions on the record.
3. How much time has passed since the conviction, not counting any time the person spent incarcerated.
4. Verifiable evidence of rehabilitation or good conduct: work experience, education, training, and other information the applicant provides.
5. The specific duties and responsibilities of the position sought or held.
6. The place and manner in which the position will be performed.

The through-line is job-relatedness: the question the law asks is whether this conviction has a real bearing on this job, not whether the person has a record. Under the 2018 law the "legitimate business reason" standard existed with no set checklist; the documented six-factor version is new (third row of the table).

Sources: RCW 49.94.005(6) (the "legitimate business reason" definition, where the factor list lives) · RCW 49.94.010 · WA Attorney General: Fair Chance Act

Step 6: Before a final no, give notice, wait two business days, then decide in writing

If the assessment still points toward withdrawing the offer (or ending employment), the amended Act requires a final exchange before the decision lands (fourth row of the table):

• Notice. The employer tells the applicant which record it is relying on.
• A window to respond. The employer holds the position open for at least two business days, so the person can correct an inaccurate record, explain the circumstances, or offer evidence of rehabilitation.
• A written decision. If the answer is still no after that window, the employer provides a written decision documenting its reasoning and how it weighed each of the factors above, including the conviction's impact on the position and the applicant's showing of rehabilitation, work experience, education, and training.

Sources: RCW 49.94.010 · WA Attorney General: Fair Chance Act

The wider rules: records, coverage, and enforcement

This section covers the rest of the law: exactly which records a background check can and can't use, which employers and positions are exempt, who enforces the Act, and what a violation costs.

Which records are off-limits, and the exception for pending charges

Three categories can't be considered at any stage, offer or no offer:

• Arrests that did not lead to a conviction.
• Juvenile records.
• Convictions that have been vacated, expunged, or otherwise legally set aside. When a court vacates or expunges a conviction, it is treated as legally nullified; the amended Act puts those outside what an employer may consider.

The arrest-record protection carries one exception, for charges that are still pending trial. It does not cover a person who is:

• Out on bail awaiting trial.
• Released on their own personal recognizance awaiting trial (released on a promise to appear, without bail; the two are alternative forms of the same pretrial release).

Charges in that posture sit outside the arrest-record ban. Beyond that exception, only an adult conviction that still stands can factor into a hiring decision, and even then, only through the assessment in Step 5.

Sources: RCW 49.94.010 · WA Attorney General: Fair Chance Act

Which positions and employers are exempt

The hiring sequence described above (the conditional-offer timing, the records limits, the individualized assessment, and the notice process) does not apply to six categories of employers and positions, listed in RCW 49.94.010(7). These categories were exempt before the amendment and remain exempt after it; the new 15-employee threshold phases in on top of them, not instead of them:

1. Jobs with access to vulnerable people. Any employer hiring for a position where the person will or may have unsupervised access to children under 18, to a vulnerable adult as defined in chapter 74.34 RCW, or to a vulnerable person as defined in RCW 9.96A.060.
2. Employers legally permitted or required to screen. Any employer, including a financial institution, that is expressly permitted or required under federal or state law to inquire into, consider, or rely on criminal-record information for employment purposes.
3. Law enforcement and criminal justice. Employment by a general or limited authority Washington law enforcement agency (as defined in RCW 10.93.020) or by a criminal justice agency (as defined in RCW 10.97.030).
4. Volunteers. An employer seeking a nonemployee volunteer.
5. Securities self-regulatory organizations. Any entity required to comply with the rules of a self-regulatory organization as defined in section 3(a)(26) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
6. Federal contracts that bar criminal records. Any employer, for a position doing work under a federal contract that specifically prohibits people with criminal records from working under it.

What "exempt" means in practice: for these positions, the section simply does not apply. The employer may ask about and consider criminal history earlier in the process, and the individualized-assessment and notice steps aren't required by this law. Exempt isn't the same as unregulated, though: the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and Washington's own fair credit reporting act (chapter 19.182 RCW) still govern how background-check reports are obtained and used, and Washington's separate screening laws for positions with access to children and vulnerable persons (RCW 43.43.830 through .845) apply on their own terms.

A separate section of the Act, RCW 49.94.020, sets the outer limits of the whole chapter: it doesn't diminish collective bargaining rights, doesn't override other state or federal law, doesn't require employers to modify jobs to accommodate a person with a criminal record, expressly allows employers to adopt policies more protective than the law requires, and preserves local ordinances that give applicants stronger protections, which continue to apply alongside the state law.

Sources: RCW 49.94.010 · RCW 49.94.020 (limitations) · WA Attorney General: Fair Chance Act

How it's enforced, and why there are no private lawsuits

The Fair Chance Act is enforced only by the Washington Attorney General's Office (its Wing Luke Civil Rights Division), which can investigate on its own initiative or in response to a complaint. Applicants and employees file complaints with that office rather than in court: by email at fairchancejobs@atg.wa.gov, by phone at (833) 660-4877, or through an online form.

There is no private right of action, and this is not new. The clause lives in RCW 49.94.020(6), has been part of the law since 2018, and the 2025 amendment left it untouched: the chapter "may not be construed to create a private right of action to seek damages or remedies of any kind."

That makes a contrast within Washington itself, because the state's pay-transparency law runs the opposite way: since the state supreme court's 2025 ruling, an individual applicant can sue over a non-compliant job posting. Same state, two enforcement designs. Pay transparency is enforced applicant by applicant in court; fair chance is enforced by one state office.

Sources: RCW 49.94.030 (enforcement) · RCW 49.94.020 · WA Attorney General: Fair Chance Act

What a violation costs

The amendment's biggest enforcement change is the size of the penalties. They are assessed per aggrieved applicant or employee, per violation: up to $1,500 for a first violation, up to $3,000 for a second, and up to $15,000 for each subsequent one. Under the 2018 schedule, that ladder was a notice of violation with an offer of assistance, then up to $750, then up to $1,000. The Attorney General's Office may still waive penalties for first-time or minor violations and provide education and a warning instead.

Sources: RCW 49.94.030 (penalties) · WA Attorney General: Fair Chance Act

If you're the applicant

We write for employers, but this law is about applicants, so here is the same set of rules from the other side. If you're applying for a covered job in Washington at a company with 15 or more employees:

• The application and interview shouldn't ask about your record. Criminal-history questions can only come after you've been found qualified and given a conditional offer.
• Some of your history can't be used against you at all: arrests that didn't lead to a conviction, juvenile records, and convictions that have been vacated or expunged. (The arrest-record protection doesn't cover charges you're currently awaiting trial on.)
• If a conviction puts your offer at risk, you have a response window. The employer must tell you which record it's relying on and hold the position open for at least two business days so you can correct an inaccurate record, explain the circumstances, or show evidence of rehabilitation, such as work history, education, or training.
• You're entitled to a rights notice. As soon as an employer tells you the position involves a background check (or you bring up your record yourself), it must immediately give you a written notice of the law's requirements and a copy of the Attorney General's Fair Chance Act guide.
• If the answer is still no, you're entitled to a written decision explaining the reasoning.
• If you believe an employer broke these rules, you can't sue under this law, but you can file a complaint with the Attorney General's Office: fairchancejobs@atg.wa.gov, (833) 660-4877, or the online form on the AG's Fair Chance Act page. Penalties the office collects accrue to you as the aggrieved party.

FAQ

When does Washington's amended Fair Chance Act take effect? July 1, 2026 for employers with 15 or more employees, and January 1, 2027 for employers with fewer than 15.

Can a Washington employer run a background check before making a job offer? Not for a covered position. Criminal history can be obtained only after the applicant is found otherwise qualified and given a conditional offer of employment, meaning an offer that stands unless the check turns up something the employer may lawfully act on. Six categories are exempt from this timing rule entirely:

• positions with unsupervised access to children under 18 or to vulnerable adults or persons
• employers permitted or required by other federal or state law to consider criminal history (including financial institutions)
• Washington law enforcement and criminal justice agencies
• nonemployee volunteer positions
• entities governed by securities self-regulatory organizations
• positions under federal contracts that bar people with criminal records

What can't a Washington employer consider in a background check? Arrests that didn't lead to a conviction, juvenile records, and convictions that have been vacated or expunged. None of these can factor into the decision at any stage. The one statutory exception: the arrest-record protection doesn't extend to a person out on bail or released pending trial.

Can an applicant sue an employer under the Washington Fair Chance Act? No, and they never could. The no-private-lawsuit rule dates to the original 2018 law and was left unchanged by the 2025 amendment. The Act is enforced solely by the Washington Attorney General's Office; complaints go to that office, which can investigate and impose penalties.

What are the penalties for violating the Fair Chance Act? Assessed per affected person, per violation: up to $1,500 for a first violation, $3,000 for a second, and $15,000 for each subsequent one. The Attorney General's Office may issue a warning instead of a penalty for a first-time or minor violation.

What does being exempt from the Fair Chance Act mean for an employer? The full list is in the answer above. What "exempt" means in practice: the timing, assessment, and notice rules of this law simply don't apply to those positions, and that was true before the amendment too; the new 15-employee threshold phases in on top of the exemptions, not instead of them. Exempt isn't unregulated: the federal and Washington fair credit reporting acts still govern how background-check reports are obtained and used, and the state's separate screening laws for positions with access to children and vulnerable persons apply on their own terms.

How is this different from the old ban-the-box law? The 2018 law mostly kept criminal-history questions off the initial application. The 2026 amendments add a conditional-offer requirement before any check, a documented individualized assessment before rejecting anyone over a conviction, a written notice-and-response process, a required rights document, and much larger penalties, phased in at 15+ employees now and all employers on January 1, 2027.

Verified against primary and agency sources: Washington's Fair Chance Act (RCW chapter 49.94), Engrossed House Bill 1747 / Chapter 71, Laws of 2025, and the Washington Attorney General's Fair Chance Act guidance (including its June 2026 update), on July 27, 2026, with the statutory text of RCW 49.94.005, .010, .020, and .030 pulled directly from the Legislature's site on July 28, 2026, and a freshness re-check against the statutory text on August 19, 2026. State Law Briefing publishes legal information, not legal advice; consult a licensed employment attorney for guidance specific to your organization.

Correction (August 19, 2026): an earlier version of this post listed five assessment factors. The statute, RCW 49.94.005(6)(b), enumerates six; the list above now matches the statutory text exactly. The Attorney General's own guide cites only factors (i) through (iv), which is how the miscount entered our draft. We verify against the statute itself and have corrected the record here.