Compliance Guidelines for Minnesota’s Ban the Box Law

By Michael Klazema on 2/26/2014

The Minnesota Department of Human Rights is charged with enforcing the new law. The department recently published its Technical Guidance 364.021 in advance of the implementation of the monetary remedy provisions of § 364.021 which become effective January 2015. Although the guidelines published by the department are not technically ‘laws’ and its enforcement guidelines could be decided differently by a court, they offer insight into the department ’s interpretation of the law.

In this Update, we will look at the department’s recommendations to employers. They are:

  • Review application forms to ensure that none of the questions could lead to the disclosure of criminal information from individuals applying for jobs in Minnesota. Multi-state employers may use one electronic application form if the form has language on it that is clear and unambiguous stating that applicants residing in Minnesota do not have to answer criminal background history questions. The text should in bold and in different font type.
  • Employers should review their initial interview script to ensure that it does not contain any questions that could lead to the disclosure of criminal information. Employers are encouraged to wait until the end of the interview before asking the applicant to submit to a background check. Or, employers can inform the applicant in writing about being selected for an interview before informing the applicant that he or she is subject to a criminal background check.  If an employer does not conduct interviews before hiring an applicant, it should initiate a criminal background check after it decides to extend a conditional offer of employment to the applicant. The employer should first inform the applicant that he or she will be hired pending the results of a criminal background check. Written notification of the prior notice may be used by the employer to establish compliance with the law.
  • Employers who conduct screening to comply with regulatory requirements must ensure applicants are not excluded from employment beyond the time period identified by a regulating licensing authority or other regulation. Employers who are required by law to conduct a criminal background check or gather information so that a check can be conducted by a licensing authority must be careful not to exceed the regulated time limits if denying employment.
  • Employers are encouraged to review and adhere to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Guidance on the Use of Arrest and Convictions Records, published on April 25, 2012. It is the opinion of the department and the Commission that the use of criminal background information by an employer to eliminate candidates for employment may constitute a discriminatory practice if the policy has a disproportionate impact for a class of individuals. The Commission has held that neutral policies with an absolute bar to employment based on a conviction record are generally unlawful, even if applied to everyone uniformly.  Therefore, employers must show that the practice of conducting a criminal background check is job-related and consistent with business necessity.
  • Employers should develop a narrowly tailored written policy for screening applicants and employees for criminal conduct. A recommended policy is one with a targeted screen that considers at least the nature of the crime, the time elapsed, and the nature of the job. It should also allow for an individualized assessment giving the individual an opportunity to offer additional information for the employer to consider. Other factors for the employer to consider include the number of offenses, references, and rehabilitation efforts. Employers should target their screening only to individuals who are chosen for an interview or for hire pending the criminal background check.

Compliance with state and federal equal employment laws and regulations is complicated. We recommend that employers work with their legal professionals to develop hiring policies that are compliant with the state and federal laws.

Our General Counsel, Chris Lemens, hosts a webinar entitled, “A Final Consensus on Criminal Background Checks and Equal Employment Opportunity” that offers in-depth instructional knowledge about compliance in this area. The next webinars are scheduled for March 11th and May 13th. Go here to register:

Referenced documents:

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.