HB 1308 was amended and voted out of the House Labor & Workplace Standards Committee on January 31 on a 6-3 vote. The amendments change the bill for cities.

The committee adopted amendments by Rep. Liz Berry (D – Seattle). Importantly for cities, public employers subject to the Public Records Act (PRA) are no longer required to provide personnel files or provide a discharge statement within a 21-day window. The bill’s private right of action and penalty provisions also no longer apply to public employers.

Public employers are still required to provide an employee’s own personnel file on request, like private employers. However, they are required to follow the procedures and requirements set out in the PRA upon getting a personnel records request from an employee, former employee, or their designee, instead of the process laid out in the bill.

The amendment also clarifies that the bill is not intended to “supersede” state or federal privacy statutes regarding nondisclosure.

Personnel records bill returns to the House

January 27, 2025

Legislation expanding the requirement for employers to share personnel records with employees has made a return in 2025. AWC had concerns about similar legislation that was considered in 2023 and 2024. The bill was heard in the House Labor & Workplace Standards Committee on January 22.

HB 1308 is sponsored by Rep. Julia Reed (D–Seattle), and has a Senate companion, SB 5345. The bill requires employers to provide an employee’s own personnel file at no cost within 21 days of a request for the file from an employee, former employee, or their designee. “Personnel records” is defined to include:

• Job application records
• Performance evaluations
• Nonactive or closed disciplinary records
• Leave and reasonable accommodation records
• Payroll records
• Employment agreements
• Other records designated by the employer as part of an employee’s “personnel file.”

The bill does not require employers to create records, adhere to a retention schedule, or supersede other state or federal privacy laws requiring nondisclosure. However, it does require employers, within 21 days of a request from a former employee, to provide a written statement describing the date and reasons for the former employee’s discharge.

Finally, the bill creates a private right of action allowing an employee or former employee to enforce the bill on their own, with violations making employers liable for equitable relief (i.e. providing the records), statutory damages, and attorney’s fees and costs.

Current law already requires employers to allow employees to inspect their own personnel files upon request, and employers must make locally available personnel files available for inspection within a “reasonable time.” However, the terms “personnel file” and “reasonable time” are not currently defined, and employers do not have to provide a discharge statement to former employees. The requirement is not enforced by a private right of action.

At the House committee hearing, proponents argued that while employers are already supposed to provide personnel records, the lack of enforcement results in some employers ignoring the request. Employer groups, including AWC, argued that enforcement does not have to mean expensive litigation, and that employers should have more time under the bill to comply with requests.

As with the 2023 and 2024 versions of this bill, AWC has concerns about HB 1308. Cities do not have a problem with the underlying policy of ensuring employees are provided the records they are already entitled to under the law, or even clarifying the types of records included. Cities also tend to already have an understanding of what is involved with responding to records requests. Our concerns are primarily in regard to bill’s strict deadlines and enforcement mechanism.

Similar to public records requests, some cities may not have the capacity to quickly respond to employee record requests. Employee records are also not all usually kept in a single proverbial “personnel file,” so responding to requests can take time. AWC has asked for a way to extend the deadline if an employer acting in good faith needs more time to comply with a request. Cities are also concerned about the inclusion of a private right of action and the costs associated with additional litigation and uncapped attorneys fees. There are lower cost enforcement alternatives that do not raise the risk of unnecessary and expensive litigation, like existing administrative enforcement processes through the Department of Labor & Industries. AWC has also asked for a clarification regarding how the bill works with disclosure under other privacy laws, like some Public Records Act exemptions.

AWC will continue to work with the bill’s proponents to address these concerns.

Dates to remember

HB 1308 is scheduled for a vote in the House Labor & Workplace Standards Committee on January 22 at 8 am.