New York City’s Fair Chance Act Notice

By Michael Klazema on 11/4/2015

New York City’s Fair Chance Act became effective last month. This is the ban-the-box ordinance that prohibits most employers from inquiring about criminal history until after a conditional offer of employment is made.

The City’s Commission on Human Rights has issued its “Fair Chance Act Notice” that is to be used in compliance with the Act. Employers are required to complete the Fair Chance Act Notice after a conditional offer is made and a criminal history report is obtained, but before an adverse employment action is taken. This appears to be written to allow employers to provide the Notice at the same time as they provide pre-adverse-action notices under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Notice consists of three sections. Section one informs the applicant that a criminal check was made and that a copy of the report is being provided to the individual. It invites the applicant to communicate any errors found on the consumer report and give additional information that he or she would like the employer to consider when making an employment decision. Section two is the Article 23-A evaluation required by the Act. Employers must indicate which other factors it is considering before making an employment decision. Finally, the third section is a notice of the employer’s reason for taking an adverse action against the applicant (that is, if no other information is provided).

Any adverse employment action must be delayed until the applicant is given at least three business days after receipt to provide additional information for consideration. An important note for employers is that this three business-day period is from the applicant’s receipt of the notice, not the employer’s sending of the notice. Employers may need to investigate the amount of time mail takes to get from its facilities where it mails these notices to residential addresses in the New York City area, in order to determine a safe amount of time to wait.

Note that employers are permitted to use a form of notice that is different from the Notice, so long as it is “substantially similar.” We believe that this would allow employers, for example, to change the arrangement of the eight factors on the form or eliminate the numbered lists in some questions. We do not believe, however, that it would allow employers to make substantive changes to the language of the notice.

The Fair Chance Act Notice is available on the Commission’s website (and by link below). The Commission will be issuing interpretative legal guidance on the Fair Chance Act, followed by a formal rulemaking process at a later date. 

What This Means To You:

1.    New York City’s Fair Chance Act becomes effective October 27, 2015.

2.    The City’s Commission on Human Rights has issued a Fair Chance Act Notice to be used after a conditional offer is made and a criminal history report is obtained, but before an adverse employment action is taken.

3.    GIS is unable to provide this service for you at this time. We are currently evaluating efforts to help facilitate the administering of this form through the system at a future date.

4.    If you have employees in New York City, train hiring managers to not ask questions about criminal history prior to making a conditional offer of employment.

5.    If you have employees in New York City, review your pre-employment forms, adverse action protocol, and Fair Credit Reporting Act disclosure forms with your lawyer.

Go here to view the Fair Chance Act Notice:

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.