The bill amends Washington unemployment law by changing how “suitable work” and availability are applied to part‑time workers. It amends RCW 50.20.100 and RCW 50.20.119 and adds a new section in chapter 50.20 RCW. For claims with effective dates on or after January 2, 2005 and before August 3, 2025, the amended RCW 50.20.119 says an otherwise eligible person may not be denied benefits solely because they are a part‑time worker who is available for, seeks, applies for, or accepts only work of 17 or fewer hours per week, and defines “part‑time worker” for that period by weeks and hours worked in the base year. For claims with effective dates on or after August 3, 2025, the new section ties suitable work to an individual’s average weekly hours in the base year, defines a post‑2025 “part‑time worker” as someone with at least 40 weeks of wages in the base year and an average of less than 35 hours per week, and provides that an otherwise eligible person cannot be denied benefits for seeking work equal to or greater than that average. The bill also retains existing suitability factors (experience, training, physical/mental ability, distance, length of unemployment, emergencies, etc.) and adds an explicit requirement to consider needs related to domestic violence or stalking for claimants identified under the cited RCW provisions. Legally, this is a statutory amendment and a procedural/eligibility change to unemployment benefit determinations rather than a criminal or penalty change: it creates a new statutory section, modifies definitions and eligibility criteria, and changes the circumstances under which benefits may not be denied for part‑time availability. It also provides a rule for individuals who were not part‑time in the base year but became unable to work full time for specified reasons (illness, family death/illness/disability, loss of care for a child or vulnerable adult, or need to protect against domestic violence or stalking) so they will not be denied for unavailability for full‑time work if they are available for and seek at least 20 hours per week. The text provided does not define the commissioner or the agency, does not reproduce definitions of “base year,” “employment,” or the method for calculating an individual’s average weekly hours, and does not include the full text of the cross‑referenced RCWs (50.20.010(1)(c), 50.20.080, 50.22.020(1), 50.20.050 subsections, RCW 7.105.010, or RCW 9A.46.110), so those details are not determinable from the extracted facts.

If enacted, the bill makes it easier for people who normally work part time to keep collecting unemployment benefits while only seeking part-time work. For claims before August 3, 2025, it protects workers who look for or accept jobs of 17 hours or less per week. For claims on or after August 3, 2025, “suitable work” for part-time claimants is tied to each person’s average weekly hours in their base year (and a part-time claimant is defined as someone with wages in at least 40 base‑year weeks who averaged under 35 hours per week). The bill also lets certain people who were full‑time in the base year but became unable to work full time for specified reasons (illness, family illness or death, loss of child or vulnerable adult care, or needing protection from domestic violence or stalking) avoid denial for being unavailable for full‑time work if they seek at least 20 hours per week, and it requires suitability reviews to consider needs related to domestic violence or stalking. The primary effects fall on unemployment insurance claimants (especially long‑term part‑time workers and survivors of domestic violence or those with caregiving needs) and on the commissioner’s office that makes eligibility decisions. Likely outcomes include more claimants qualifying while seeking fewer hours, which could raise unemployment payouts and increase workload for adjudicators who must determine each claimant’s average base‑year hours and consider the new availability reasons. The text does not specify how to compute “average number of weekly hours in the base year,” how agencies should verify illness, caregiving needs, or claims of domestic violence/stalking, or which agency is the “commissioner,” so administrative rules or guidance would be needed for consistent implementation.