District of Columbia Adopts Beyond-The-Box Legislation

By Michael Klazema on 8/22/2014

The District’s new ordinance restricts employers from asking about or requiring an applicant to disclose or reveal information about arrests or any criminal accusation (indictment, information, complaint or formal charge) made against the applicant which is not pending or did not result in a conviction. The Act goes beyond the box by requiring employers to first make a conditional offer of employment before asking about or requiring disclosure of a criminal conviction, and then by compelling them to show a legitimate business reason for withdrawing the conditional job offer.

Under the new ordinance, once an employer extends an offer of employment to the applicant, the employer can withdraw the offer or take adverse action against the applicant only for a legitimate business reason. In determining a legitimate business reason, the employer’s decision “must be reasonable” in light of the following factors:

  1. The specific duties and responsibilities of the job necessarily relate to the employment sought or held by the applicant;
  2. The bearing, if any, that the criminal offense for which the applicant was convicted will have on the applicant’s fitness or ability to perform one or more responsibilities of the job;  
  3. The time that has elapsed since the occurrence of the criminal offense;
  4. The frequency and seriousness of the criminal offense; and
  5. Any information produced by the applicant, or on behalf of the applicant, that relates to rehabilitation and good conduct since the occurrence of the criminal offense.

Any time an applicant believes that a conditional offer was withdrawn or that an adverse action was taken on the basis of a criminal conviction, he or she may make certain demands on the employer. The applicant may request within 30 days after the termination or adverse action, that the employer provide within 30 days a copy of all records that the employer obtained and/or considered in making its decision, including criminal records. In these cases, the employer is required to also send a notice that advises the applicant of his or her opportunity to file an administrative complaint with the Office of Human Rights.

The Act provides the Office of Human Rights with the exclusive remedy for violations under the ordinance. A person claiming to be aggrieved by a violation of the Act may file an administrative complaint with the Office of Human Rights. If the Commission finds that a violation has occurred, penalties may be assessed as follows for employers that employ:

  1. 11 to 30 employees, a fine of up to $1,000;
  2. 31 to 99 employees, a fine of up to $2,500;
  3. 100 or more employees, a fine of up to $5,000.

As we have been reporting on the past couple of years, ban-the-box legislation is rarely just about eliminating or banning the box that asks about criminal history from the job application form. It usually places more restrictions and obligations on employers, and grants specific rights and remedies to applicants and employees. We will continue to report on the different variations of “beyond-the-box” legislation as it is adopted.

You may access the District’s Bill 20-642 here:

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.