There are a number of basic rights that every U.S. citizen is entitled to when they are seeking employment. These include protection from being denied employment based on race, color, religion, gender, and national origin. In addition to these there are gray areas such as age, familial status and sexual orientation which will likely be added with Federal protection at some point in time. What is clearly absent from these lists is language that protects citizens with criminal records from being denied employment. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) seeks to change this.
As part of a civil rights campaign to reduce discrimination in the workplace, the EEOC implemented their “Ban the Box” initiative. The box being referenced is a question on many job applications that asks whether the applicant has ever been convicted of a felony. It is the belief of the EEOC that asking this information before the applicant has had an opportunity to be interviewed will instantly remove their candidacy from a position they may have been qualified for.
So far there have been 18 states and over 100 cities and counties to adopt “Ban the Box”, and there is building pressure for it to become a federal mandate.
|
The states to adopt this policy so far are |
||
| • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Georgia • Hawaii |
• Illinois • Maryland • Massachusetts • Minnesota • Nebraska • New Jersey |
• New Mexico • Ohio • Oregon • Rhode Island • Vermont • Virginia |
For states that have already implemented the policy, a new process has been incorporated into their pre-employment practices. No longer is the question of felonious activity included on the application; however different regions may choose when it is appropriate to conduct the background check. For example the City of Oakland in California has gone so far as to promote not referencing criminal histories at all unless it is relevant to the job position. Minnesota, on the other hand, only promotes holding off on conducting the background check until at least an initial interview has been conducted.
The motivation behind this policy is the idea that a change to the hiring process will alleviate disparate impact. In this situation disparate impact is the view that there is a disproportionate amount of black males in the U.S. prison system which has lead to discrimination against race in the workplace. Because of the association, it has become a civil rights movement with a lot of momentum picking up in the last few years. Pressure has been mounting on the federal government to make “Ban the Box” a standard requirement that all states must adhere to.
Employers are encouraged to be mindful of this practice regardless of the state(s) they operate in. While more than one third of the country is required to remove the box from their applications there is enough legal precedence that may give applicants an edge should they feel discriminated against by an organization’s hiring process.
When you subscribe to the blog, we will send you an e-mail when there are new updates on the site so you wouldn't miss them.
Comments 3
Familial status has been a federal protection since 1988 . . .
And isn't it true that in areas that have adopted "Ban the Box", employers may inquire about a person's criminal background once a conditional offer of employment is made?
Familial status has been a federal protection since 1988 . . .
And isn't it true that in areas that have adopted "Ban the Box", employers may inquire about a person's criminal background once a conditional offer of employment is made?
Hi Doug - thank you for your comments.
You are correct that familial status has been protected since 1988, but this pertain exclusively to fair housing laws, not employment laws. While it seems to be generally understood that familial status qualifies, and is treated, as a protected class, it does not have the same explicit legal backing in areas outside of fair housing.
As for when a criminal record may be pulled, you are correct. "Ban the Box" aims to remove the question from the initial application that potential new hires fill out in order to be considered for an interview. The thought is that if a crime has no affiliation with the job, and the person is qualified, then they should not be disqualified from the applicant pool based on answering honestly. While on the surface this is not a bad practice (we adopted this policy several years ago, as well), the basis for disparate impact can have much larger ramifications.
Hi Doug - thank you for your comments.
You are correct that familial status has been protected since 1988, but this pertain exclusively to fair housing laws, not employment laws. While it seems to be generally understood that familial status qualifies, and is treated, as a protected class, it does not have the same explicit legal backing in areas outside of fair housing.
As for when a criminal record may be pulled, you are correct. "Ban the Box" aims to remove the question from the initial application that potential new hires fill out in order to be considered for an interview. The thought is that if a crime has no affiliation with the job, and the person is qualified, then they should not be disqualified from the applicant pool based on answering honestly. While on the surface this is not a bad practice (we adopted this policy several years ago, as well), the basis for disparate impact can have much larger ramifications.
Hi Ryan,
Thanks - my bad on the familial status! And yes, with the SCOTUS ruling on disparate impact, along with an EEOC that is running amok, I'm certain nobody involved in any aspect of HR will be bored in the foreseeable future.
Thanks again for the article and your follow up; much appreciated!