Advertisement

May 24, 2013

Employment-Related Criminal Offender Record Information "CORI" Changes Go into Effect on May 4, 2012

The remaining changes from the 2010 overhaul of the Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) law will go into effect on May 4, 2012, and several provisions affect Massachusetts employers. We first addressed changes to the CORI law in an alert published in September 2010, when the “ban the box” provision prohibited most employers from requesting criminal history information on an initial employment application.

The CORI system allows certain employers to petition to access criminal record information for applicants, employees, and volunteers. Employers that work with the elderly, disabled, or children, for example, must register with the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services (DCJIS), which administers the CORI system, in order to access CORI.

Beginning on May 4, the CORI request system will be available online to all employers, not just employers working with particular populations. Other key changes include:

  • Employer Certifications and Forms: Employers making CORI requests must certify that the CORI subject has signed an acknowledgement form authorizing the employer to obtain criminal record information. Employers must certify that they have verified the identity of the CORI subject with a form of government-issued identification. Employers must maintain acknowledgement forms for one year from the date of the request.
  • Use of CORI in Employment Decisions: Employers may not reject applicants based on criminal history information without informing the applicant. An employer must provide the applicant a copy of any CORI the employer has accessed before questioning the applicant about his/her record. If the employer makes an adverse decision based on a criminal record, then the employer must give the applicant a copy of the record upon which the decision was based. Failure to provide the criminal history information to the applicant may subject the employer to investigation, a hearing, and/or sanctions by the board.
  • Restrictions on Dissemination: Employers may only share CORI information with those people in the employer’s organization that have a need to know the contents of the CORI or with government entities. Employers must maintain a secondary dissemination log for one year following the dissemination of a CORI. The log must include the name of the CORI subject, his/her date of birth, the date of dissemination, the name of the person who received the CORI, and the purpose for disseminating the CORI.
  • Limits on Retaining CORIs: Employers may not maintain a copy of a CORI for more than seven years from the last date of employment, or from the date of the employment decision. This restriction applies to CORIs obtained from the DCJIS, not private companies.
  • Safe Harbor for Wrongful Termination: Employers who make decisions within 90 days of obtaining a CORI from the state will not be held liable for negligent or discriminatory hiring practices if they relied on the state-provided CORI. Employers who obtain criminal history information from private, for-profit companies do not receive the safe harbor.

Employers also should know that new provisions decrease the waiting period for sealing a criminal record. Records can be sealed 10 years after a felony and 5 years after a misdemeanor, while the waiting period has been 15 years for a felony and 10 years for a misdemeanor. Employers still may view pending criminal charges on the CORI until the charges are dismissed, and still have permanent access to view convictions for murder, manslaughter, and major sex offenses. Notably, employers will no longer have access to view non-convictions unless the employer works with a vulnerable population, such as children. 

©1994-2013 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Associate

Jillian is an Associate in the Employment, Labor, and Benefits Practice and is based in the firm's Boston office.

Prior to joining the firm, she was a research assistant at Workplace Flexibility 2010, a campaign to support the development of a comprehensive national policy on workplace flexibility, in Washington, DC. There, she contributed to and edited the organization's national policy platform on federal time off. She was a Summer Associate at Mintz Levin in 2010.

(617) 348-4917

About the Author

Of Counsel

Martha is Of Counsel in the firm's Boston office, practicing in the Employment, Labor & Benefits Section. She has more than 20 years of experience advising and representing clients on a broad range of employment law issues and in adversarial proceedings. In her role as an advisor to employers, boards of directors, and executives, Martha regularly provides practical advice and counsel on a wide range of employment-related issues, including employee relations and policy matters, violations of noncompetition, nonsolicitation and nondisclosure agreements, employee...

(617) 348-4415

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.