Another Review of Seattle’s Ban-the-Box Ordinance

By Michael Klazema on 6/27/2014

Seattle’s ban-the-box ordinance applies to any person who has one or more employees, its designee, or any person acting in the interest of the employer. It also applies to job placement, referral, and employment agencies. It applies to any employee who performs 50% or more of their employment services in Seattle. Exceptions are made for the federal, state, county and local governments other than the City. Also, the law does not apply to law enforcement, security or criminal justice personnel, private investigation services, or persons with unsupervised access to developmentally disabled persons, vulnerable adults, or children under sixteen years of age.

Seattle Code 14.17 restricts employers from advertising, publicizing, or implementing any policy or practice that automatically or categorically excludes all individuals with any arrest or conviction records from employment. It also restricts an employer from obtaining an applicant’s criminal history information before the initial screening of the applicant’s qualifications.

Together, the law and the administrative rules place many requirements on employers when it considers an applicant with a criminal history or a pending criminal charge.

First, employers must consider whether a legitimate business reason exists in which the employer believes in good faith that an applicant’s criminal conduct underlying a conviction or pending criminal charge either will have a negative impact on the individual’s fitness or ability to perform the job, or will cause harm or injury to people, property, business reputation, or business assets.

Second, employers must demonstrate consideration of the following in deciding whether a legitimate business reason exists:

  1. Whether the conduct or pending criminal charge will have a negative impact on the employee’s or applicant’s fitness or ability to perform the position, or cause harm or injury to people, property, or business assets;
  2. The seriousness of the underlying criminal convictions or pending criminal charges;
  3. The number and types of convictions or pending criminal charges;
  4. The time that has elapsed since the conviction or pending criminal charge, excluding period of incarceration;
  5. Any verifiable information related to the individual’s rehabilitation or good conduct, provided by the individual;
  6. The specific duties and responsibilities of the position sought or held; and
  7. The place and manner in which the position will be performed.

Third, the employer must inform the applicant or employee of the records or information that it relied on before it takes an adverse employment action based solely on the individual’s criminal conviction or conduct relating to an arrest record or pending criminal charge. This notice must be provided in a reasonable manner most likely to reach the individual in the shortest amount of time. The position must be held open for at least two business days after notifying the individual of the employer’s intent to take adverse employment action.

Fourth, employers are required to give the applicant or employee reasonable opportunity to respond, correct, or explain the records or information. This requirement is demonstrated when the employer has:

  1. Informed the applicant or employee of the records or information that it relies on, including the entire results of the background check;
  2. Explained to the applicant on which part(s) of the records or information it relies on;
  3. Given the applicant or employee a fair chance to review the records or information;
  4. Provided the applicant or employee with the name, address, and telephone number of the outside agency that supplied the report;
  5. Provided notice to the applicant or employee of the individual’s right to dispute the accuracy or completeness of any records or information the agency furnished;
  6. Given the applicant or employee an opportunity to provide accurate records or information if the applicant or employee responded that the records or information are inaccurate; and
  7. Given the applicant or employee an opportunity to provide an explanation as to the individual record or information on which the employer is relying as well as verifiable information related to the individual’s rehabilitation or good conduct. If the employer receives information from the individual that is inconsistent with the information in the criminal history report, the employer must give the individual additional opportunity to correct errors by following the process outlined here.

Seattle’s ban-the-box law follows and expands on the federal requirements outlined in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Guidelines on considering arrest and conviction records issued on April 25, 2012. Employers are required to demonstrate their compliance with the ordinance and regulations, and engage in an individualize assessment before taking adverse employment action against individuals with criminal histories.

Seattle Municipal Code 14.17:

Seattle Office of Civil Rights Rules, Chapter 80:
seattlejobassistanceordinance_administrativerules_final.pdf Compliance Update dated July 26, 2013:

Tag Cloud
Recent Posts

Latest News

  • June 20 Repeat background checks are becoming more common, with companies in India leading the charge. What does this trend look like, and how can employers embrace it now to stay ahead of the curve?
  • June 19

    Every federal job involves a background check of some kind. These background checks and how they are evaluated vary based on job, department, and security clearance level.

  • June 18

  • June 14 Ban the box laws aim to improve opportunities for employment. Could they have the opposite effect instead?
  • June 13 Jacobs Petroleum Products is a regional petroleum company that operates throughout Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Maryland. Apart from their employees carrying much responsibility and have frequent contact with customers, the company’s hiring also tends to be segmented since individual store managers are responsible for hiring talent for their own stores. In this employment landscape, Jacobs Petroleum Products needed a reliable and effective way to screen its new hires for criminal infractions and other red flags.
  • June 12

    The University of Wisconsin System may tweak its hiring and reference check processes. The potential changes come after one of UW’s assistant deans was accused of sexual harassment.

  • June 07 Stories of abuse by coaches in youth sports leagues continue to crop up around the country, but rules and guidelines remain patchy and enforcement is often lacking. The struggle to implement an effective system continues nationwide.
  • June 07 Financial background checks, usually referred to as credit history checks, can be an effective way to find out if a candidate is fit to handle accounts, financial data, and other assets at your business.
  • June 06 The Society for Human Resource Management and the Charles Koch Institute recently commissioned a survey to find out how willing employers were to hire people with criminal records. The study indicates that managers, HR professionals, and employees themselves are becoming more comfortable with the idea of hiring and working with ex-offenders.
  • June 04 Are fingerprint background checks the gold standard for employee screening, or are they overhyped? We look at some of the myths and misconceptions surrounding these checks.