Blog

 
     

Indiana Senator Wants to Ban “Ban the Box” Legislation

By Michael Klazema on 1/9/2017
Could Indiana make it illegal for municipalities to implement “ban the box” ordinances? If a Republican State Senator gets his way, then yes. Per a report from The Times of Northwest Indiana, Phil Boots, an Indiana State Senator from the town of Crawfordsville, has announced a plan to introduce a new piece of legislation during the current session. The law in question, he says, would bar cities, towns, and counties throughout Indiana from enacting "ban the box" policies.

Boots and his planned legislation align with comments made recently by the Indiana Chamber of Commerce. Per the Times article, the Chamber of Commerce believes that “ban the box” ordinances are unfair to businesses. Employers should be allowed to make their own decisions about who to hire, the Chamber says. “Ban the box” ordinances impair this freedom by forcing businesses to remove questions about criminal history from their job applications. Some “ban the box” policies even restrict when in the hiring process employers can run background checks on their applicants.

Proponents of “ban the box” ordinances argue that the policies help ex-criminal offenders find jobs and rebuild their lives—thereby reducing recidivism. Mike Ripley, who serves as the Vice President of the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, doesn’t disagree with that argument. However, he does believe that employers should be the ones ultimately making the decision of whether to hire individuals with criminal records. Technically, employers still make that decision, as “ban the box” policies don’t forbid pre-employment background checks. However, “ban the box” policies do delay when in the hiring process employers can learn about applicant criminal histories.

Indiana hasn’t seen much in the way of "ban the box" legislation over the years. While some states have more than half a dozen municipalities that have passed "ban the box" ordinances (in California, for instance, 12 districts have some form of "ban the box" legislation), Indiana only has one. Marion County, the county that houses Indianapolis, banned the box for public employees and contractors in 2014. The county has yet to prohibit the box for private employers, however.

The legislation that Boots is currently drafting would not retroactively eliminate the "ban the box" ordinance in Marion County. For the time being at least, public employers in Indianapolis would still not be permitted to ask about criminal history on job applications. However, if the legislation passes, no other city or county in the state would be authorized to implement its own "ban the box" ordinance.

Boots said he wants to push this legislation to make things simpler and more uniform for employers. He is worried that, if different policies began emerging in every different city or county, businesses would have a difficult time knowing what rules to follow. If Indiana bans “ban the box,” then all employers outside of Marion County would know that they were free to ask about criminal history on job applications.

Sources:

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/new-state-bill-to-prohibit-ban-the-box-ordinances/article_bdfccb5b-1599-5eb2-962b-6aaf61a84c27.html

http://www.nelp.org/content/uploads/Ban-the-Box-Fair-Chance-State-and-Local-Guide.pdf

Tag Cloud
Categories
Recent Posts

Latest News

  • April 10 — Oregon legislators have proposed a bill that would allow ridesharing companies to operate statewide. The bill’s critics argue that it doesn’t call for fingerprint background checks and would make it difficult for local municipalities to impose their own regulations.
  • April 06 — Idaho State University recently instituted a background check policy for faculty members and other full-time staff. Previously, the school only conducted reference checks.
  • April 03 — An Illinois man has been sentenced to three years in prison for failing to register as a sex offender and working as a youth sports referee. The state legislature is considering a bill that would require more in-depth background checks for licensed sporting officials.
  • March 13 — A Denver hospital was in the headlines last year for hiring a surgery technician who stole syringes of the painkiller fentanyl. New information suggests that a more thorough background check could have flagged the man’s addiction issues.
  • March 08 — On September 26, 2016, the state of California passed Assembly Bill 1843 that amended the Labor Code by prohibiting employers from asking an applicant for employment to disclose certain juvenile records. The amended Labor Code has been effective since January 1, 2017.
  • March 08 — For the past 5 years, backgroundchecks.com has reported rulings of district courts around the country that have ruled that an employer’s inclusion of a liability waiver or other extraneous information in a disclosure violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act’s (“FCRA”) disclosure requirements found in §604(b)(2)(a). Now, for the first time, a federal court of appeals has weighed in on the disclosure requirement.
  • March 07 — The Kentucky State Senate has approved a piece of legislation that would open the state’s child abuse and neglect registry to schools, camps, and parents. If passed, the law would allow anyone to request a search of the database.
  • March 06 — A federal judge in Florida has ruled that a plaintiff with a case against Amazon.com has the right to sue the company for an alleged violation of the FCRA. The suit accuses Amazon of failing to provide a standalone background check disclosure form free of extraneous information.
  • March 05 — A federal judge in Florida has ruled that a plaintiff with a case against Amazon.com has the right to sue the company for an alleged violation of the FCRA. The suit accuses Amazon of failing to provide a standalone background check disclosure form free of extraneous information.
  • February 21 — In January, a Washington, D.C. contractor was fired for being reckless with confidential patient files. The woman had a criminal record with two felony convictions, but a local background check did not list the offenses.