Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 43.43.834 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) A business or organization shall not make an inquiry to the Washington state patrol under RCW 43.43.832 or an equivalent inquiry to a federal law enforcement agency unless the business or organization has notified the applicant who may be offered a position as an employee or volunteer, that an inquiry may be made.

(2) A business or organization shall require each applicant to disclose to the business or organization whether the applicant:

(a) Has been convicted of a crime;

(b) Has had findings made against him or her in any civil adjudicative proceeding as defined in RCW 43.43.830; or

(c) Has both a conviction under (a) of this subsection and findings made against him or her under (b) of this subsection.

(3) The business or organization shall pay such reasonable fee for the records check as the state patrol may require under RCW 43.43.838.

(4) The business or organization shall notify the applicant of the state patrol's response within ten days after receipt by the business or organization. The employer shall provide a copy of the response to the applicant and shall notify the applicant of such availability.

(5) The business or organization shall use this record only in making the initial employment or engagement decision. Further dissemination or use of the record is prohibited, except as provided in RCW 28A.320.155. A business or organization violating this subsection is subject to a civil action for damages.

(6) An insurance company shall not require a business or organization to request background information on any employee before issuing a policy of insurance.

(7) The business and organization shall be immune from civil liability for failure to request background information on an applicant unless the failure to do so constitutes gross negligence.

[ 2005 c 421 s 3; 1999 c 21 s 2; 1998 c 10 s 3; 1990 c 3 s 1103. Prior: 1989 c 334 s 3; 1989 c 90 s 3; 1987 c 486 s 3.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 2019–2019 · leading case: Ana Liza Garcia v. Wa State Dshs (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ana Liza Garcia v. Wa State Dshs (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “” RCW43.43.834(2)(b). As a result, the background check authorization form asks each applicant if “a court or state agency ever issued you an order or other final notification stating that you have sexually abused, physically abused, neglected, abandoned, or exploited a child,…”

Ana Liza Garcia v. Wa State Dshs (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “” RCW 43.43.834(2)(b). As a result, the background check authorization form asks each applicant if ‘a court or state agency ever issued you an order or other final notification stating that you have sexually abused, physically abused, neglected, abandoned, or exploited a child,…”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.43.834(2)(b) — 2 cases

Ana Liza Garcia v. Wa State Dshs (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “” RCW43.43.834(2)(b). As a result, the background check authorization form asks each applicant if “a court or state agency ever issued you an order or other final notification stating that you have sexually abused, physically abused, neglected, abandoned, or exploited a child,…”

Ana Liza Garcia v. Wa State Dshs (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “” RCW 43.43.834(2)(b). As a result, the background check authorization form asks each applicant if ‘a court or state agency ever issued you an order or other final notification stating that you have sexually abused, physically abused, neglected, abandoned, or exploited a child,…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.