The Roots of Hiring Discrimination—and Spokane’s Response
Even in 2024, job applications quietly screen out some of society’s most vulnerable individuals long before they ever sit down for an interview. Whether you realize it or not, a simple line—“Address”—has served to exclude those without stable housing, turning job seeking into an insurmountable wall for Spokane’s homeless. On Monday night, the Spokane City Council changed that calculus: passing the nation’s first “Ban the Address” ordinance, a move being hailed by advocates as a sea change in employment equality.
The ordinance, approved in a 6-1 vote, prohibits employers from demanding that job applicants list their address or housing history before receiving a conditional offer of employment. According to the Spokane Human Rights Commission and multiple local housing advocates, this step is intended to neutralize a key vector of discrimination against the city’s roughly 2,000 unhoused residents. As Council Member Paul Dillon, sponsor of the ordinance, put it, “I am proud of the compromise and collaboration that got us to make history tonight in Spokane.”
For Spokane—a city grappling with visible and increasing homelessness—this ordinance addresses a rarely discussed dynamic. Despite federal fair hiring law, employers routinely screen for an address, disproportionately disqualifying individuals who list shelters or P.O. Boxes. Research published by the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty found that 39% of homeless job applicants are asked to provide a permanent address before an interview, creating an unjust hurdle that directly perpetuates unemployment among the unhoused. Even for those using friends’ or family addresses, a lack of stable residence often translates to an unstable job trajectory.
Business groups and progressive policy leaders have sparred over such measures for years—never before has a city in the U.S. codified address-blind hiring as law. The fact that Spokane, hardly known for left-of-center activism, has done so underscores a growing recognition that systemic problems require bold, innovative policy solutions.
Debate, Doubt, and the Complex Reality for Employers
Policies that challenge business-as-usual rarely go unopposed. Local business owner Curtis Rystadt didn’t mince words about the doubts swirling among Spokane’s business community. “You can’t enforce the laws that you have right now, what is the point in adding another law that does not get enforced?” he asked—a sentiment echoed by conservative councilmember Jonathan Bingle, who cast the sole ‘no’ vote.
Concerns from business owners aren’t new. Across the nation, “Ban the Box” laws (which prohibit asking about criminal history up front) generated similar skepticism, yet national studies by organizations like NELP have since found that such policies enhance workforce diversity without increasing risk. Opponents frequently claim new rules introduce red tape or vague liability, but legislative history suggests these fears fade with implementation as employers adapt.
“Too often, a street address is the biggest obstacle standing between someone and the dignity of a paycheck. Spokane’s decision signals that our community values effort and potential—not a ZIP code.”
— Mike Fagan, Spokane social services advocate
What about practical enforcement? While skeptics worry that businesses could simply ask for an address indirectly, the ordinance spells out clear penalties for violations and establishes reporting mechanisms through Spokane’s Human Rights Commission. Few expect litigation to be common, but for job seekers, the mere presence of this legal protection already shifts the balance of power.
Look at the data: According to a 2022 Pew Research survey, 67% of Americans believe that the government should take more action to ensure the basic needs of all citizens are met—including employment access. Progressive policy leaders point to these sentiments as proof that “Ban the Address” reflects an evolving understanding of fairness, not regulation for its own sake.
Toward a New Model of Inclusive Hiring
America’s cities face an escalating crisis of housing insecurity. Formerly unseen, the plight of the unhoused is now woven into the daily fabric of urban life. For too long, employment has remained an elusive first rung on the ladder out. Spokane’s approach—attacking discrimination at the very outset of hiring—could offer a template for systemic change across the country, especially if initial outcomes match the council’s hopes.
Paul Dillon’s remarks after the vote paid tribute to the stories shared by community members, some of whom described being denied jobs simply for listing a shelter address. In a nation where even private sector powerhouses like Starbucks and Target tout “second chance” hiring, Spokane’s municipal move is both ethically resonant and practical. Harvard sociologist Matthew Desmond, in his landmark study “Evicted,” reinforces this logic, writing, “Stable employment is out of reach for millions simply because the world is designed to exclude them before they even begin the race.”
The ordinance awaits mayoral signature. If new Mayor Lisa Brown opts to sign, Spokane’s law goes into effect in 30 days, making discrimination against homeless applicants illegal throughout city limits. The measure joins a legacy of progressive city leadership—Seattle on minimum wage, San Francisco on paid family leave—that, over time, has reshaped national discourse.
Beyond that, the policy functions as a cultural signal: Spokane is now the first city telling the unhoused and unstably housed that their backgrounds will not immediately disqualify them from opportunity. The hope is that others will follow. The struggle for dignity—and the belief that job applicants should be judged on their skills, not their sleeping arrangements—has found a new champion. In Spokane, at least, a street address is no longer destiny.
