October 24, 2020

Volume X, Number 298

Advertisement

October 23, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

October 22, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

October 21, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

More States and Localities Enact and Strengthen Ban the Box Laws

Nationwide, 36 states and over 150 municipalities have adopted “ban the box” laws that prohibit employers from asking applicants about their conviction or arrest records on their initial applications.  This article provides updates on recent changes and updates in Hawaii, California, and St. Louis, Missouri.

Hawaii

Hawaii has one of the oldest laws that limits an employer’s ability to consider older conviction records in making hiring decisions.  Effective September 15, 2020, Hawaii SB 2193 prohibits most private sector employers from considering conviction records that are less than seven years old for felony convictions, and less than five years old for misdemeanor convictions, excluding periods of incarceration.  Hawaii shortened its 10-year lookback period “to reduce unnecessary employment discrimination against individuals with old and relatively minor conviction records, in furtherance of economic self-sufficiency, and to reduce crime and recidivism rates.”

California

The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) recently released  Frequently Asked Questions  (“FAQs”) for California’s Fair Chance Act. The FAQs provide guidance on the Fair Chance Act, discuss how the law works, employers subject to the law, and requirements for employers to follow when they want to inquire about an applicant’s criminal history.

California’s Fair Employment and Housing Council has also updated regulations governing criminal background checks. The amended regulations, effective October 1, 2020, incorporate the requirements of the Fair Chance Act into existing regulations addressing the consideration of criminal history in employment decisions. The new regulations expand the definition of “applicant” to include individuals who are conditionally offered employment but begin working while an employer undertakes a post-offer consideration of the individual’s criminal history; and expand the scope of the Fair Chance Act by requiring that labor contractors and union hiring halls comply with the regulations when selecting workers for pool or availability lists; among other requirements.  The regulations also state that employers may be subject to local ordinances that impose additional requirements.

St. Louis, Missouri

Effective January 1, 2021, employers in St. Louis with 10 or more employees are prohibited from:

  • Basing a hiring or promotion decision on an applicant’s criminal history or related sentence, unless the employer can show that its decision is based on all relevant information reasonably available to it, including the frequency, recency, and severity of the criminal history, and that the decision regarding the applicant’s criminal history is reasonably related to the duties and responsibilities of the position.
  • Posting job advertisements that exclude applicants based on criminal history, and using exclusionary language in job applications and other forms used in the hiring process.
  • Inquiring into or requiring applicants to disclose their criminal history on initial job applications and forms.
  • Seeking publicly available information regarding an applicant’s criminal history.

However, an employer may ask about an applicant’s criminal history:

  • After deciding the applicant is otherwise qualified for the position;
  • After the employer interviews the applicant; and,
  • Only if the criminal history inquiry is made of all applicants in the post-interview selection pool.

These updates are good reminders for employers in states and municipalities with “ban the box” laws, regulations, and ordinances to:

  • Review and update post-offer, pre-employment questionnaires and forms that ask applicants to disclose their criminal history;
  • Review and update policies and procedures to reflect their “ban the box” practices; and,

Ensure that their relevant personnel responsible for hiring are well versed in “ban the box” requirements.

Copyright © 2020, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume X, Number 286
Advertisement

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS

Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Jason P. Brown Labor & Employment Litigation Attorney Hunton Andrews Kurth Washington, DC
Associate

Jason litigates complex employment and labor disputes.

Jason’s practice involves representing employers in all aspects of labor and employment litigation in defense of complaints for class action and single-plaintiff matters. He has successfully litigated and favorably resolved cases involving allegations of sexual harassment, age, race, gender, and disability discrimination, and claims of wrongful termination, harassment and retaliation. Jason has handled all aspects of civil litigation defense from case inception through trial.

Jason provides clients with practical advice...

202-955-1870
Robert T. Quackenboss Labor & Employment Litigation Attorney Hunton Andrews Kurth Washington, DC & New York, NY
Partner

Bob litigates complex employment, labor and business disputes.

Bob is a litigator who represents businesses in resolving their complex labor, employment, trade secret, non-compete and related commercial disputes. He was recognized as a Labor & Employment Star in Benchmark Litigation’s Rankings for 2019. He advises employers regarding union organizing activities, manages union election campaigns and litigates labor arbitrations nationwide. He also serves as co-chair of the firm’s Unfair Competition and Information Protection Task Force, which concentrates on trade secret theft, restrictive covenant and non-competition matters. He also handles complex employment discrimination, harassment, and wage-and-hour disputes, including class and collective actions.

He is admitted to practice in the US District Courts for the Districts of Maryland, Washington, DC, the Southern District of New York, New Jersey, and Georgia; the US Courts of Appeals for the Second, Fourth, Eleventh and DC Circuits; and the state courts of Maryland, New York, New Jersey, Georgia and Washington, DC.

Relevant Experience

  • Defended numerous class action lawsuits alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act with regard to criminal background checks in the hiring process; designed background check programs for nationwide employers, and consulted regarding 50-state compliance on background check policies.
  • Coordinated union election campaigns for employers, resulting in multiple employer victories and petition withdrawals, and advised numerous clients on advance preparation for union organizing, “ambush” election petitions, and adapting to the NLRB’s evolving election rules.
  • Designed national labor relations programs and policies for retail, manufacturing and other clients, including strategic plans for expansion and migration into the nation’s most active and aggressive union markets.
  • Advised and defended political, media, lobbying and business entities targeted by organized labor and NGOs in corporate-style campaigns, including implementation of physical security measures, strategic public communications and related litigation.
  • Prosecuted and defended multi-state trade secret, non-compete and non-disclosure matters within numerous industries, including nuclear waste storage, financial services, computer software design, executive recruiting, television broadcasting, advertising and public relations, physician group services, banking, grocery retail, acoustics engineering, home improvement warehouse retail, prison commissary services, and many others.
202-955-1950
Advertisement
Advertisement