A new bill limits the ways that employers can use electronic monitoring of employees. It also limits the use of automated systems in employment-related decisions. AWC has concerns about the scope of the bill and the liability it may expose cities to.

HB 1672, sponsored by Rep. Shelley Kloba (D–Kirkland), places a number of limitations on employer use of technology to monitor employees and make employment decisions. To start, the bill restricts the “electronic monitoring” of employees to certain situations where all these conditions are met:

• Employer is utilizing monitoring to accomplish one of the following purposes:
  • Assist the employee in their job,
  • Monitor production and quality,
  • Ensure compliance with labor laws,
  • Protect health and safety of employee, or
  • Track time worked or production output for determining compensation
• The monitoring is necessary to accomplish the identified purpose;
• The specific form of monitoring is least invasive means to meet that purpose;
• The monitoring is used with smallest number of employees necessary; and
• The employer ensures only authorized access to data produced.

It also requires employers to provide notice to monitored employees, unless the monitoring is used on reasonable belief that employee is engaging in illegal activity, violating the rights of the employer or another employee, or creating a hostile work environment. The bill also sets out purposes for which electronic monitoring can't be used. The proposal restricts employers from requiring employees to wear monitoring devices unless the device is necessary to the employee’s job and is limited to the times and activities necessary for essential job functions.

HB 1672 also limits the use of automated decision systems and prohibits employers from making employment related decisions solely based on those systems. Automated decision systems are algorithms or computational processes that are used or assist in making decisions, judgments, or conclusions. Automated systems can be used if system outputs are corroborated by human oversight, the employer has prepared an automated decision system impact statement and has otherwise provided notice to employees. Prior to using an automated decision system, employers must create a written impact statement describing the system and the detailed assessment of possible errors or limits of system.

Enforcement of the bill is done through a complaint-based Department of Labor & Industries administrative process, with civil penalties ranging from $1000 to $10,000 per violation.

AWC is concerned about the scope of the bill and how the broad range of activities by cities could result in expensive civil penalties. Some city employees, like police officers, are routinely monitored in their work by dash cams, body worn cameras, and GPS tracking. The bill could impact, or at least call into question, the use of those tools. In addition, automated decision systems, especially those using artificial intelligence, are increasingly being used in any number of routine tools used by city management. The extensive requirements to document the use of automated tools could be burdensome to city staff and delay implementation of important new tools to improve efficiency and lower costs. Finally, since such a broad range of activity is included as potential violations, the relatively high civil penalties for violations could expose cities to additional high costs for conduct that was done in good faith.

AWC asks for feedback from cities on this proposal, so we can better understand the effect this bill would have on city operations. Please send your thoughts on the bill to Matt Doumit.

Dates to remember

HB 1672 is scheduled for a hearing in the House Labor & Workplace Standards Committee on February 11 at 10:30 am.