Concerns over workplace security grow as employers are prevented from conducting pre-interview background checks.
While NFIB members are already struggling
with the management restrictions enforced
by Obamacare, another onerous type of
hiring regulation is spreading: “ban-the-box”
statutes that are meant to protect convicted
criminals from discrimination in applying for jobs.
At latest count, 13 states and dozens of U.S.
localities have begun prohibiting employers from asking about a candidate’s criminal
background until after an interview. The
states are California, Colorado, Connecticut,
Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey,
New Mexico and Rhode Island. And ban-the-
box backers are agitating for wider adoption.
Concerns over workplace security and
skyrocketing litigation costs have made pre-employment background checks an essential
tool for many businesses—large and small.
Background checks also help prevent
lawsuits against companies over negligent
hiring in cases in which an employee’s
actions harm someone else.
Some employers are legally required to
conduct background checks for certain jobs,
especially in healthcare and child care where
there are big liability ramifications. Beth
Clemons, for instance, manager/dispatcher
of Clemons Coaches in Waseca, Minnesota,
told NFIB that conducting background
checks is vital to the trust placed in the
company by public schools and the parents
of the students whom it transports. “Running
a background check is about protecting our
clients, who in our case are kids,” she says.
“We make sure that who we hire is who they
say they are.”
Enforcing that simple hiring principle is
getting more difficult for small business
owners. Support for ban-the-box laws comes
from advocates of ex-prisoners who believe
former criminals don’t stand a chance of
returning to the good side of society if
they’re shadowed by past convictions.
Their cause has been bolstered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a federal agency that changed its interpretation of a crucial legal principle concerning this issue in 2012. EEOC long held that a hiring policy that treats blacks or Hispanics with
criminal backgrounds differently from their white counterparts is illegal discrimination, under the idea of
But the agency’s new standard is called
“disparate impact,” meaning that it doesn’t
matter if an employer applies a policy—such
as checking criminal backgrounds—equally.
That practice is illegal if it harms members of
a protected minority more than others, unless
the employer can prove the disparities are
unavoidable as a business necessity.
Nine state attorneys general have sued the federal government for overreaching. In a letter, they stated they were troubled
that EEOC’s “true purpose may not be the
correct enforcement of the law, but rather
the illegitimate expansion of [discrimination]
protection to former criminals.”