Oregon Wants to Ban the Box and Much More

By Michael Klazema on 4/6/2015

House Bill 3025

House Bill 3025 defines “employer” to mean any person, company, corporation, firm, labor organization, or association that regularly employs one or more employees, any person acting directly or indirectly as an agent of an employer, or any person undertaking compensation to procure employees or opportunities for employment.

This bill applies to “employment” which is defined much more broadly than traditional employment. Employment is defined as any occupation, vocation, job, work, or other services for an employer with or without pay, including temporary or seasonal work, contracted work, contingent work, work through the services of a temporary or other employment agency or any form of workplace vocational or educational training. This appears to cover volunteers and individual contractors.

The bill would make it an unlawful employment practice for employers to:

  • Inquire into or consider in any way an applicant’s conviction history, unless limited exceptions apply;
  • Use job application forms and employment descriptions that do not inform an applicant that he or she is subject to a background check for convictions directly related to the position and that unless otherwise required by law, only job-related convictions will be considered and will not automatically disqualify the applicant from employment;
  • Conduct a background check on an applicant unless it is required by law or the employer has made a good faith determination that the relevant position is of such sensitivity that a background check is warranted;
  • Conduct a background check prior to sending the applicant a conditional offer letter, notice of rights, and a notice that the employer has determined that a background check is warranted or required by law;
  • Use or consider: (a) records of arrest that did not result in a conviction, (b) records of conviction that have been sealed; (c) an action that has been dismissed; (d) expunged convictions; (e) misdemeanor convictions for which no jail sentence may be imposed; and (f) infractions.
  • Disqualify an individual from employment solely or in part because of a prior conviction, unless the conviction is job-related or is a conviction that legally bars the employment of the individual.

If a background check is conducted and contains information that may be the basis for an adverse employment action, employers will be required to provide the applicant with: (a) a written explanation of how the conviction affected the adverse action; (b) a copy of the background check report; and (c) examples of mitigation or rehabilitation evidence that the applicant may voluntarily provide to be reconsidered for the position.

House Bill 3097

House Bill 3097 is very similar to bill 3025, but some differences are worth mentioning. This bill applies to employers with five or more employees. All of the “unlawful employment practices” are the same, except that the first one prohibits employers from using “job applications” to inquire into an applicant’s conviction history instead of the broad language in bill 3025 that states, “Inquire into or consider in any way  an applicant’s conviction history…” Another difference is this bill allows 10 business days for applicants to provide mitigation and rehabilitation evidence, while bill 3025 allows four business days. Further, bill 3097 gives the Oregon Department of Administrative Services authority to set rules for how employers consider criminal history instead of points (3), (4) and (6) above.

Common Points

This legislation stems from the ban-the-box movement which seeks to prohibit employer access to and use of criminal history of applicants and employees. These particular Oregon bills are very burdensome in that they would largely prohibit employers from inquiring into the criminal history records of applicants without the employer abiding by a long list of requirements.

  • Employers will have to make a good faith determination that the position is fit for a category of individuals who are subject to criminal history record checks.
  • Employers will have to hold open a position until a final employment decision is made.
  • Employers will have to inform applicants who are not offered employment of any other positions for which the applicant may be eligible.
  • Employers would be prohibited from considering pending court cases and criminal charges where the defendant is currently on probation without a conviction.
  • Applicants will be able to appeal an adverse action to the Oregon Commission of the Bureau of Labor and Industries.
  • Employers would be subjected to lawsuits by anyone believing a violation of the law has occurred.
  • Both bills stipulate an immediate effective date, if passed.

Oregon’s legislative session is short, ending July 13, 2015. So, if you oppose this legislation, you should contact your legislator or trade association right away to voice your opposition.

What This Means To You:

  • Oregon wants to make it illegal to inquire into the criminal history of applicants until after a conditional offer of employment is made and other requirements are met.
  • Oregon wants to place additional requirements on employers when a decision not to hire is made, based entirely or partially, on an applicant’s criminal history.
  • Oregon wants to allow applicants to sue employers that may have violated the law.

House Bill 3025 is available for review here: 
House Bill 3097 is available for review here:

Industry News

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.