Mark Harmsworth believes that until the definition of ‘reasonably expects’ is clarified, House Bill 1402 should not be passed
Mark Harmsworth
Washington Policy Center
House Bill 1402 (HB 1402), introduced by Representative Scott (D), would prohibit an employer from requiring a driver license unless the employer reasonably expects driving to be an essential part of the job function and alternate, cost and travel time equivalent methods of performing a job function are not available.
In principle HB 1402 is not a bad policy and could open up more opportunities for job applicants. However, the language of the bill is ambiguous, particularly the definition of ‘reasonably expects’. This is the term used to define if the license requirement is valid. Failure to comply opens up employers to potential litigation. An employer may inadvertently or unintentionally include a driver’s license requirement for a job, particularly in retail or hospitality jobs. HB 1402 currently will create more problems than it solves.
The bill would put into law;
It is an unfair practice under the Washington Law Against Discrimination for an employer to include a statement in a job advertisement, posting, application, or other material that an applicant must have a valid driver’s license, unless:
- the employer reasonably expects driving to be an essential job function;
- and the employer reasonably believes it would not be comparable in travel time or cost to use an alternative form of transportation, including a ride hailing service, using a taxi, carpooling, bicycling, walking, or transit.
The definition of ‘reasonably expects’ needs a much clearer definition, with no ambiguity, so business owners can advertise jobs to attract the widest set of qualified applicants without fear of litigation.
Until the definition of ‘reasonably expects’ is clarified, House Bill 1402 should not be passed.
Mark Harmsworth is the director of the Small Business Center at the Washington Policy Center.
Also read:
- Opinion: IBR still holding and lying about coming billions in cost overruns
Joe Cortright argues that Interstate Bridge Replacement officials are deliberately delaying the release of an updated cost estimate that he says could push the project toward $10 billion. - Opinion: Another problem with strike pay from the UI fund – Potential double-dipping, overpayments
Elizabeth New (Hovde) argues that Washington’s new strike pay law risks overpayments and double-dipping unless workers are clearly warned at the point of applying for unemployment benefits. - Letter: A call for competent Interstate Bridge project management
Rick Vermeers argues that unchecked scope, rising costs, and missed timelines threaten the survival of the Interstate Bridge Replacement project unless light rail is removed. - Opinion: More taxes sadly the Washington way
Elizabeth New (Hovde) argues that Washington lawmakers continue to turn to new taxes instead of addressing state spending priorities, particularly in health care policy. - Opinion: IBR administrator receives generous Christmas gift on his way out the door
Ken Vance argues that IBR leadership avoided accountability on rising project costs as Administrator Greg Johnson announced his departure without providing updated estimates.
