Washington State: AI Hiring Laws — SB 5116 & My Health My Data Act

Primary Citation: Washington SB 5116 (2023)
Effective: March 31, 2024
Jurisdiction: Washington — applies when hiring for Washington positions or candidate is located in Washington
Enforced by: Washington Attorney General; Consumer Protection Act (private right of action available)
Related Law: Washington My Health My Data Act (SB 1155, effective March 31, 2024)
Official Source: Washington State Legislature – SB 5116

Overview

Washington State has enacted two complementary laws — effective simultaneously on March 31, 2024 — that together create a comprehensive AI hiring compliance framework:

1. SB 5116: Regulates automated employment decision systems (AEDS) used to screen, rank, or evaluate job candidates
2. My Health My Data Act (MHMDA): Extends privacy protections to consumer health data, which can intersect with AI hiring tools that capture biometric or physiological data

Who must comply: Employers hiring for Washington positions or with candidates located in Washington — including out-of-state employers and employers of Washington-based remote workers.

Bottom line: Before using any AI tool to make or substantially influence Washington hiring decisions, employers must disclose the AI use, conduct impact assessments for high-risk systems, protect candidate rights, and assess whether the tool collects health-adjacent data under the MHMDA.

What Is an "Automated Employment Decision System" (AEDS)?

Under SB 5116, an automated employment decision system is any computational process that assists or replaces discretionary judgment in decisions about candidates or employees, including:

Key threshold: The system must substantially influence an employment decision — not merely assist with administrative tasks that have no evaluative component.

Key Requirements Under SB 5116

1. Disclosure to Applicants

Employers must provide notice when an AEDS is used in a decision affecting candidates or employees. Required disclosure elements:

• That an automated employment decision system is being used
• The general type of system and its intended purpose
• What factors or data the system uses
• How the system's output influences the decision
• Contact information for requesting explanation or review

Timing: Must be provided before the AEDS is used, or at the time of notification of a decision.

2. Impact Assessment for High-Risk AEDS

For AEDS classified as high-risk (making or substantially influencing consequential employment decisions), employers must conduct a written impact assessment that includes:

• Description of the AEDS and its deployment context
• Analysis of known and reasonably foreseeable risks of algorithmic discrimination
• Data used by the system and its sources
• Performance evaluation across protected classes
• Mitigation measures for identified risks

Update schedule:

• Before initial deployment
• Annually thereafter
• After significant updates to the system

3. Algorithmic Discrimination Protections

SB 5116 prohibits deploying AEDS that produce algorithmic discrimination based on:

• Race, color, ethnicity, national origin
• Sex, gender identity, sexual orientation
• Religion
• Age
• Disability
• Marital or family status
• Military or veteran status

Algorithmic discrimination is defined as unjustified differential treatment arising from automated system outputs. Employers must take reasonable steps to test for and mitigate algorithmic discrimination.

4. Data Protection Standards

SB 5116 incorporates data protection standards for AEDS:

• Data minimization: AEDS should only process data necessary for the stated employment purpose
• Purpose limitation: Data collected for hiring may not be repurposed for other uses without consent
• Security: Reasonable technical and organizational measures to protect AEDS data

5. Candidate Rights

Individuals subject to AEDS decisions have the right to:

• Request an explanation of how the AEDS output influenced a decision affecting them
• Request human review of an AEDS-influenced decision
• Opt out of certain AEDS uses (particularly for non-essential evaluations)

Employers must respond within a reasonable timeframe and cannot penalize candidates for exercising these rights.

Washington My Health My Data Act: Health Data + AI Hiring

The Washington My Health My Data Act (MHMDA) extends privacy protections to consumer health data — and can intersect with AI hiring in several important ways.

Health Data AI Hiring Tools May Collect

Some AI hiring tools collect or infer data qualifying as "consumer health data" under the MHMDA:

MHMDA Requirements When Health Data Is Collected

If an AI hiring tool captures consumer health data, additional obligations apply:

• Explicit consent: Specific consent required before health data collection
• No secondary use: Data collected for health purposes cannot be used for employment decisions without separate consent
• Right to deletion: Individuals can request deletion of health data
• Prohibition on sharing: Health data cannot be shared with third parties without consent

Dual Compliance Strategy

For employers using AI video interview or assessment platforms in Washington:

1. Check whether your AI platform captures biometric or health-adjacent data (facial geometry, voiceprint, physiological indicators)
2. If yes: Both SB 5116 AEDS requirements AND MHMDA protections apply
3. Obtain layered consent that addresses AEDS use (SB 5116) and health data collection (MHMDA)
4. Update privacy policies to reflect both AEDS and health data collection

Enforcement

Washington's enforcement model includes a meaningful private right of action through the Consumer Protection Act, giving affected candidates a direct legal avenue — similar to Illinois BIPA.

Washington vs. Other State AI Hiring Laws

Compliance Checklist

• Identify all AEDS used in Washington hiring or employment decisions
• Classify each AEDS by risk level (high-risk vs. limited)
• Conduct pre-deployment impact assessments for high-risk AEDS
• Draft candidate disclosure notices for each AEDS used
• Build candidate opt-out and human review request workflows
• Assess whether AEDS tools capture consumer health data under the MHMDA
• Obtain layered consent if health data is collected
• Test AEDS tools for algorithmic discrimination across protected classes
• Update privacy policies to reflect AEDS data practices
• Review AI vendor contracts for SB 5116 obligations
• Train HR staff on candidate rights under SB 5116

How EmployArmor Helps

EmployArmor supports Washington employers with SB 5116 and MHMDA compliance:

• AEDS inventory and risk classification tools
• Disclosure and consent templates covering both SB 5116 and MHMDA requirements
• Impact assessment frameworks for high-risk AEDS
• Algorithmic discrimination testing coordination
• Multi-law compliance mapping for Washington employers hiring in other regulated states
• Regulatory alerts as Washington AI legislation evolves

Get your Washington AI Hiring Compliance Assessment →

Washington Employer Resources

• Washington Recruiting Compliance
• Washington Background Check Compliance
• Washington Financial Services Compliance
• Colorado AI Act (SB24-205) — Related Law

Frequently Asked Questions

Does SB 5116 apply to employers outside Washington?

Answer: Yes — if you hire for Washington-based positions or your candidates are located in Washington, SB 5116 applies regardless of where your company is headquartered. Washington-based remote workers trigger the requirement even for out-of-state employers.

What is the difference between SB 5116 and the My Health My Data Act?

Answer: SB 5116 covers automated employment decision systems broadly. The My Health My Data Act covers consumer health data specifically. If your AEDS captures biometric or health-adjacent data, both laws apply simultaneously — requiring layered consent and separate compliance obligations.

Is Washington's impact assessment requirement the same as Colorado's?

Answer: They are similar in concept — both require pre-deployment analysis of risk and discriminatory impact. Washington's framework is broader (covering all consequential AEDS use), while Colorado's is more detailed in required documentation and mandates annual AG reporting.

What if our AI vendor refuses to provide impact assessment documentation?

Answer: This is a significant red flag. If a vendor cannot provide documentation supporting an impact assessment, consider whether you can legally use the tool for Washington hiring. Include impact assessment documentation requirements in all vendor contracts.

Does Washington SB 5116 cover promotion decisions or only hiring?

Answer: SB 5116 covers both hiring and employment decisions broadly — including promotion and performance evaluation decisions substantially influenced by automated systems.

What enforcement options do Washington candidates have under SB 5116?

Answer: Affected candidates can pursue claims through Washington's Consumer Protection Act, which provides for actual damages and attorney's fees. The Washington AG can also investigate and pursue violations independently.

Last updated: March 2026. This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult qualified employment counsel for guidance specific to your organization.

Related Laws and Resources:

• Texas CUBI Guide
• Colorado AI Act (SB24-205)
• Illinois BIPA Guide
• NYC Local Law 144 Guide
• Multi-State AI Hiring Laws Comparison
• AI Hiring Compliance Guide 2026