2025 New Legislation Impacting Employment-Related Public Records

While the 2025 Washington legislative session was not particularly active in the context of public records laws, we did get amendments to two laws that directly impact employment records, something all public agencies possess.

Expanded Employee Protection Against Retaliation: HB 1934

In 2019, the legislature created a new Public Records Act (PRA) exemption for agency records of active and ongoing investigations of unfair employment discrimination and harassment. Once the investigation is closed, the records may only be disclosed “if the names of complainants, other accusers, and witnesses are redacted.”  See RCW 42.56.250(1)(f).

As the 2019 bill report indicated, the exemption was needed to avoid the chilling effect of having their identities subject to public disclosure that often deters victims from reporting discrimination and harassment.

But since the original exemption only applied to “names,” this left quite a bit of employee-identifying information that could easily be tracked back to the complainant, accuser, or witness. The 2025 bill report for HB 1934 indicates there was a documented incident where an accused public official used the employee-identifying information in the otherwise redacted investigation records to engage in retaliation and further harassment.  

The new bill, HB 1934, expands the exemption to ensure that:

images, employee agency job titles, email addresses, and phone numbers of complainants, other accusers, and witnesses are redacted and their voices on any audio recording taken during the course of investigation have been altered while retaining inflection and tone.

However, if the complainant is an elected government official, their name and title cannot be redacted.

Note that the amendment makes no change to the exemptions that already apply to an employee’s personal contact information at RCW 42.56.250(1)(d).

Employee Access to Personnel Records: HB 1308

Outside of the PRA, private and public employees in Washington have long had the right to inspect their “personnel file” at least once per year (RCW 49.12.240-260). 

Despite this law being around since 1985, there has been consistent confusion about what documents are considered part of the “personnel file,” whether public employees are required to go through the formal public records request process to inspect and obtain copies, and to what extent PRA exemptions apply to those records.

HB 1308 brings much clarity to these questions. First, for the purposes of these sections, “personnel file” includes the following records (to the extent they exist):

(a) All job application records;
(b) All performance evaluations;
(c) All nonactive or closed disciplinary records;
(d) All leave and reasonable accommodation records;
(e) All payroll records; and
(f) All employment agreements.

As for access to the records, if the employer is an agency subject to the PRA, the copy of the personnel file is to be provided “in accordance with the procedures and requirements set forth” in the PRA. This is likely to represent a change in how many public employers have been handling employee access to personnel records, bringing a formality of process that likely did not exist before. However, this does mean there is no set deadline for making the records available for inspection (unlike for private employers under the amended law). But this also explicitly includes applying the exemptions found within the PRA, such as the new exemptions in RCW 42.56.250(1)(f) discussed above, although it is common practice not to apply exemptions that protect the privacy of the person making the request.

To the extent access to personnel files is addressed in collective bargaining agreements, there is nothing that indicates the legislature intended to supersede existing employment contracts. In the absence of legislative intent to the contrary, if there is a conflict between the law and an agreement, Washington courts tend to apply whichever instrument provides the greater protection for the rights of workers so long as the minimum obligations of the PRA are met.

Nuance in enforcement of the right to access

It is worth noting that HB 1308 creates a new private cause of action to allow employees and former employees the right to go to court and compel the employer to provide access to their personnel file and obtain statutory damages for delay.

Importantly, this does not apply to “employers that are subject to” the PRA. Any right to compel access to those records and obtain penalties will continue to be under the existing procedures in the PRA. In most instances “employers that are subject to” the PRA are state and local government agencies. But this language choice creates an interesting distinction for employees of private employers that also happen to be subject to the PRA through the operation of the “Telford Analysis.” For more information, see When Must a Private Entity Comply with the PRA?

Closing Thoughts

There were lots of questions about these two bills during a recent webinar Legislative Update on 2025 Public Records Bills (free access to a recording is available on MRSC’s page On-Demand Webinars). I have tried to address some of those questions here, but I anticipate many more. If you work for or represent an eligible Washington public agency, please feel free to reach out at the contact information below.