New Jersey Takes “Ban the Box” One Step Further with New Background Check Bill

By Michael Klazema on 12/18/2013

State governments throughout the country have taken 2013 as an opportunity to “ban the box” and require the removal of any questions about criminal history from job applications. Up until now, New Jersey has remained mostly silent in the ban the box argument. But rather than be late to the party on that particular provision, New Jersey’s Assembly Labor Committee has now gone one step further.

The committee last week voted to approve a bill that would prohibit employers from running background checks on their applicants until they are ready to make a job offer. In other words, the entire job screening process would run its course – from application to phone interview and finally to in-person interview – with employers having little to no insight into an applicant’s criminal record. When the employer has chosen the most qualified or otherwise impressive applicant, he or she would then be allowed to make a job offer conditional on the outcome of a criminal background check.

While New Jersey currently has no “ban the box” legislation in place, and while this new bill will make no changes to which questions employers can and cannot ask on a job application, the background check law would serve essentially the same purpose. Proponents of the bill have used the same arguments as supporters of “ban the box” or expungement laws. The arguments are still good ones, about how former criminals with years of good behavior and clean records are still being punished by prospective employers for a crime they committed decades ago, and how ex-convicts who have turned their lives around need to be given a second chance if they are truly going to overcome their previous offenses.

By not allowing employers to run a background check until they have chosen their ideal applicant, the New Jersey bill would hope to break the cycle of businesses writing off qualified individuals simply because of a single black mark on their records. It would also encourage employers to more closely consider the offense in question in light of the job to be performed. In other words, it would be a means of fighting blanket discrimination against ex-convicts in the workplace.

However, businesses throughout the state – as well as the Republican members of the Assembly Labor Committee – worry that the bill would hinder the ability of employers to protect their businesses, their customers, their property, and their other employees from potentially dangerous hires. For instance, the bill could slow down hiring processes for businesses that like to screen multiple applicants – and look into multiple backgrounds at once.

In the case of a convicted criminal making it to the final stage of the screening process, employers could offer that individual the job, run the background check, deem the applicant unfit for the role, and then have to go back to square one of the interview process. At worst, the bill could result in wasted  time by actively withholding relevant information until the last minute. Additionally, employers choosing to turn away applicants thanks to a criminal record would likely feel compelled to explain the decision in details– a bureaucratic step that many busy employers won’t like.

While there is certainly something to be said for fighting the discrimination against ex-convicts in the employment circuit, simple “ban the box” policies may be a better way of doing it than New Jersey’s more restrictive background check bill. Screenings for criminal history, sex offender status, and other offenses – all screening options that are available through – are an important steps for any employer to take in order to protect themselves and their business. By not allowing employers to run background checks earlier in the screening process, New Jersey may be making a move that will diminish hiring productivity.


Tag Cloud
Recent Posts

Latest News

  • 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.
  • February 27 Governor Asa Hutchinson signed House Bill 2216 which amends the employer’s directives regarding a current or prospective employee’s social media account.
  • February 23 A Texas summer camp is in the spotlight after an unflattering investigation from a local news channel. The case has some parents asking what they can do to vet summer camp programs before enrolling their kids.