Legislation and Compliance Update: Seattle to Decide Whether to Ban the Box

By Michael Klazema on 11/20/2012

Seattle’s Public Safety, Civil Rights and Technology committee is expected to vote on the proposed Work Assistance ordinance in January 2013. If passed, the proposed “ban-the-box” regulation will ban the box on a job application that ask applicants to disclose arrest or conviction history, and substantially limit an employer’s use of criminal history when making employment decisions. 

The Work Assistance ordinance designates it an unfair employment practice for any employer within the City to discharge, refuse to hire, or take other adverse employment action because of a[n]:

  1. arrest record,
  2. conviction record, unless a direct relationship exists between the conviction record and the employment held or sought, or
  3. pending criminal charge, unless a direct relationship exists between the pending criminal charge and the employment held or sought.

Additionally, employers would be prohibited from obtaining or considering information about an applicant’s arrest or criminal conviction record or pending criminal charge, including asking a job applicant to supply such information until the employer has given the applicant a conditional offer of employment.

The legislation considers a “direct relationship” exists when the nature of the criminal conduct in question has a direct bearing or connection to the employee’s or applicant’s fitness or ability to perform the job position sought or held, or when it is reasonably foreseeable that employing the applicant or employee will result in harm or injury to persons or property. Employers would be required to consider factors such as the:

  1. seriousness and the number of criminal convictions or pending criminal charges;
  2. number and types of convictions or pending charges;
  3. amount of time that has elapsed since the conviction or pending charge, excluding
  4. periods of incarceration;
  5. verifiable information, if any, related to the individual’s rehabilitation or good conduct;
  6. specific duties and responsibilities of the job position; and,
  7. employer’s legitimate interest in protecting people, property, and its business reputation.

This proposed ordinance would apply to any person who has one or more employees within the City, or the employer’s designee, or any person acting in the interest of the employer.

However, if passed, it would not apply to any employer who (i) provides services to, houses, or has access to, or otherwise cares for any person who is under the age of 18, or vulnerable persons, or persons under the age of twenty-one and has been sentence to confinement; (ii) provides law enforcement, policing, crime prevention, security, or private investigator service; or, (iii) is expressly permitted or required under any federal or state law to inquire into, consider, or rely on information about an applicant’s or employee’s arrest or criminal conviction record or pending criminal charges for employment purposes.  Finally, it will not be considered an unfair employment practice for an employer to disqualify an applicant or employee whose criminal conviction record includes a conviction for, or who is under pending criminal charges for embezzlement, theft, fraud, or any other financial crime from employment in a position involving access to money, financial information, or personal identifying information of customers, employees, or members of the public. will continue to monitor this proposed legislation and will let you know if/when the City of Seattle decides to ban the box.

Tag Cloud
Recent Posts

Latest News

  • March 20 Employers who use E-Verify must follow the proper steps and procedures when they receive a “tentative non-confirmation notice” from either the Social Security Administration or Department of Homeland Security. Failure to follow the proper procedures can cost employers both time and money. 
  • March 20

    Four Department of Commerce employees are out after their background checks resulted in security clearance denials. All four had worked high-ranking positions for months despite incomplete background checks.

  • March 15 As more states legalize the recreational use of cannabis, they contend with the emergence of new industries surrounding marijuana cultivation and production. 
  • March 14 In most cases, it is easy to determine where an issue might show up on a pre-employment background check. Citations for traffic violations or reckless driving charges will appear on a motor vehicle record check. Verdicts in a civil court case will show on a civil court background check. And criminal convictions—from petty theft to violent felonies—show up on criminal background checks.
  • March 13 How many years back do employment background checks go? This question can have multiple different answers depending on the situation.
  • March 13 A new bill in Florida would require landlords of apartment complexes to present tenants with verifications of employee background checks to give them peace of mind the people working in and around their homes are trustworthy.
  • March 08 Police officers working with the University of Texas at Arlington recently arrested a man who had avoided police capture on a warrant out of Oregon for nearly two decades. The man, whose real name is Daniel Charles Ray Hanson, spent those 17 years using a variety of fake names and identification documents to move around the country, often engaging with educational institutions under false pretenses. Police say Hanson regularly went by at least three different aliases. He sports a rap sheet that stretches back to an arson conviction in 1995. 
  • March 07

    The Future of EEOC Guidance in Texas Is Up in the Air

    The EEOC issued guidance in 2012 warning employers about the dangers of enforcing categorical policies to bar candidates with criminal histories. That guidance is not enforceable in Texas thanks to a recent court ruling.

  • March 05 Vermont is the latest state to restrict employers’ access to and use of social media accounts of employees and applicants. 
  • March 01 In an age of "industry disruptors" turning established business models on their heads, companies such as Uber and Lyft rely on a unique workforce of individuals outside the traditional employer-employee context. Uber calls them "partners" while other businesses refer to them as "independent contractors," the official classification these individuals use for tax purposes. Recently, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) revealed they had warned a business, Postmates, for misclassifying their staff as independent contractors. In the NLRB's determination, these individuals were employees.