Richmond, California Takes Ban-the-Box a Step Further

By Michael Klazema on 8/23/2013

Richmond’s City Council voted on July 30, 2013 in favor of a “ban-the-box” ordinance.  Ordinance 14-13 amends Article II of the Municipal Code of the City of Richmond by adding Chapter 2.65.

Ordinance 14-13 applies to any employer who is a City financial assistance recipient, lessee, or a contractor or subcontractor, and who employs the equivalent of ten or more full-time employees in their total workforce. These employers will be required to remove any question about prior criminal convictions from all of their employment application forms.  This very restrictive ordinance goes a step further and prohibits employers from inquiring into an applicant’s conviction history. This ban on an employer’s ability to inquire into an applicant’s criminal history is one of the most restrictive ban-the-box ordinances we have seen.

There are only two exceptions to the prohibition against inquiring into an applicant’s conviction history. The exceptions are if a criminal background investigation is required by state or federal law, or if the position is considered “Sensitive.” A Sensitive position is one designated by the Richmond Police Department to be of such sensitivity that an exemption is warranted. In this case, the background screening can only be conducted after the employer has determined the applicant is otherwise qualified and has made a conditional offer of employment.  Employers are then limited to consider only “substantially job-related convictions.” This means the conviction record must be substantially related to the duties and qualifications of the position before the employer can consider it when making an employment decision. An individualized assessment must also be conducted to consider the time elapsed since the offense, any evidence of rehabilitation, or other mitigating circumstances.

Compliance with the ordinance will be required for an award of any contract or lease with the City of Richmond, and the City will make random reviews to assess compliance. If the City Manager believes an employer may not be in compliance, the following administrative procedure must be followed:

1.    The City will deliver a written “Notice of Noncompliance” to the employer. The notice will state the noncompliance and the specific action required to correct the violation. It will also state a time period in which to make the necessary correction. The correction period will not be more than 30 days after receipt of the notice.

2.    If the employer disagrees with the notice, it has the burden of proving compliance and submit evidence and argument to the City no more than 30 days after receipt of the notice.

3.    If the City Manager agrees that compliance has occurred it will deliver a written “Notice of Correction of Noncompliance.”

4.    If the City Manager does not agree that compliance has occurred, it will deliver a written “Notice of Failure to Correct Noncompliance.”

5.    Upon receipt of a Notice of Failure to Correct Noncompliance, the employer may request a hearing before the City Manager. The hearing will be held between 20 and 30 days. In the meeting, the employer may present evidence and argument to prove compliance. The City will issue its final determination within ten days of the hearing.

6.    The request for a hearing must be made within ten working days after receipt of the notice. If the employer does not timely request a hearing, the determination of failure to correct noncompliance will be final.

If a final determination of noncompliance is made, the employer is subject to the remedies provided in the ordinance. Noncompliance may result in the suspension or termination of the contract in whole or in part, and civil penalties. The civil penalties may be assessed up to $1,000 or 1% of the total contract, whichever is greater, for each instance of noncompliance. The employer’s history of violation will be a factor in the City’s decision to award future contracts. It may also form the basis for denying contract awards.


Richmond’s Ordinance 13-14 becomes effective August 29, 2013. The text of the ordinance is available on the City’s website:

Tag Cloud
Recent Posts

Latest News

  • March 22 Countrywide, states and local municipalities have committed to ban the box legislation, seeking to equalize opportunities in the job market for those with criminal histories.
  • March 22

    Thinking about becoming a firefighter? Here are some of the background check requirements you might face.

  • 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.