September 17, 2012

Legislation may give hope to job-seeking ex-cons

• Post a comment |
• E-mail |
• Print
• • Share:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

When people are convicted of a crime and have paid their debt by serving jail time, there is a reasonable expectation that they can re-enter society and rebuild their lives once they are released. The reality for many ex-convicts, however, is that the stigma of prison often haunts them much longer than their sentences -- sometimes for the rest of their lives.

Nowhere is this unfair treatment more apparent than during a job search. With more employers relying on criminal background checks to screen out undesirable candidates these days, many workers with even minor offenses who have been law-abiding citizens ever since their release dates are being routinely passed over. A 2010 study conducted by the Center for Economic and Policy Research cited research indicating that ex-offenders with felony convictions or imprisonment endure a 15 percent to 30 percent reduction in employment rates after their release.

This month, Seattle City Councilman Bruce Harrell sought to address this form of discrimination by introducing legislation to prevent the city's businesses from using an applicant's criminal history as a basis for disqualification in cases where there is no direct relationship between the conviction and the job duties.

Harrell, who chairs the City Council's Public Safety, Civil Rights and Technology Committee, says the legislation could help reduce the number of repeat offenders among the estimated 114,000 Seattle citizens with arrest records. "A primary cause for criminal recidivism is the huge challenge people with criminal backgrounds face when trying to gain employment," he says. "Public safety is increased when unreasonable job barriers can be reduced."

Under this proposed Job Assistance Legislation, employers would still be able to perform criminal background checks and request criminal history information, but only after the employer has made a conditional offer of employment to the applicant. Also, if any conviction or pending charge is discovered, an employer would be allowed to "discharge, refuse to hire or carry out a tangible adverse employment action" only if the alleged activity has a "direct relationship" with the job in question.

Other factors to consider when determining a direct relationship between criminal activity and a job's duties include:

• the seriousness of the crime;


• the number and types of convictions or charges;


• the time elapsed since the conviction or charge;


• information related to the individual's rehabilitation;


• the specific duties and responsibilities of the position sought or held; and


• the employer's legitimate interest in protecting people, property and business reputation.

"This legislation allows applicants to be afforded an opportunity to explain criminal history," Harrell says. "Research supports the fact that when unemployment is lowered, rates of property crimes are lowered. Employers also have a legitimate responsibility and interest in protecting their business operations, reputation, employees and customers as well as the public at large. This ordinance seeks to balance these two interests."

There are some exceptions, of course. The proposed statute would not apply to employers who provide services to minors, nor would it apply to law enforcement, policing, crime prevention, security or private investigation services. In addition, employers would still be permitted to disqualify an applicant with a conviction or pending charge for embezzlement, theft or fraud from employment in a position involving access to sensitive financial or personal information.

If Harrell's legislation passes, it would not be alone. Municipalities in five other states (Hawaii, Kansas, Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania) have enacted some kind of limit on the use of criminal background checks for certain private-sector jobs, Harrell says.

The issue is also getting some traction on the federal level. This spring, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission released amended enforcement guidelines stating that an employer's consideration of an applicant's criminal history as the sole reason to deny employment may be in violation of the Title VII discrimination clause of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. As Harrell's office states, for example, African Americans make up 3.6 percent of Washington's population, yet they account for nearly 19 percent of the state's prison population, so the impacts of criminal history checks on this community is disproportionately high.

It's too soon to know how far the legislation will go in this session or how much support it will get from other councilmembers. Business groups such as the Downtown Seattle Association and the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce, which have traditionally favored the used of criminal background checks to determine their members' exposure to risk, have yet to weigh in on the debate. Stay tuned this fall for updates.

Note: For information and guidance about returning to work following incarceration, visit the Offender/Ex-Offender Resources page on the Washington state Employment Security Department's website, or the U.S. Department of Labor's Employment Information Handbook for Ex-Offenders.

Randy Woods writes about job-search tools, networking techniques and other tips to help you land your dream job.

• Post a comment |
• E-mail |
• Print
• • Share:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Read more
background checks, discrimination, diversity, returning to the workforce, screening