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

  • June 20 Repeat background checks are becoming more common, with companies in India leading the charge. What does this trend look like, and how can employers embrace it now to stay ahead of the curve?
  • June 19

    Every federal job involves a background check of some kind. These background checks and how they are evaluated vary based on job, department, and security clearance level.

  • June 18

  • June 14 Ban the box laws aim to improve opportunities for employment. Could they have the opposite effect instead?
  • June 13 Jacobs Petroleum Products is a regional petroleum company that operates throughout Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Maryland. Apart from their employees carrying much responsibility and have frequent contact with customers, the company’s hiring also tends to be segmented since individual store managers are responsible for hiring talent for their own stores. In this employment landscape, Jacobs Petroleum Products needed a reliable and effective way to screen its new hires for criminal infractions and other red flags.
  • June 12

    The University of Wisconsin System may tweak its hiring and reference check processes. The potential changes come after one of UW’s assistant deans was accused of sexual harassment.

  • June 07 Stories of abuse by coaches in youth sports leagues continue to crop up around the country, but rules and guidelines remain patchy and enforcement is often lacking. The struggle to implement an effective system continues nationwide.
  • June 07 Financial background checks, usually referred to as credit history checks, can be an effective way to find out if a candidate is fit to handle accounts, financial data, and other assets at your business.
  • June 06 The Society for Human Resource Management and the Charles Koch Institute recently commissioned a survey to find out how willing employers were to hire people with criminal records. The study indicates that managers, HR professionals, and employees themselves are becoming more comfortable with the idea of hiring and working with ex-offenders.
  • June 04 Are fingerprint background checks the gold standard for employee screening, or are they overhyped? We look at some of the myths and misconceptions surrounding these checks.