California Bans the Box for Government Employees

By Michael Klazema on 10/23/2013

The new law “bans the box” on state and local agency job applications. The “ban the box” initiative is the removal of the box on a job application that inquires about an applicant’s criminal history.

The legislation prohibits a state or local agency from asking an applicant for employment to disclose orally or in writing information concerning the conviction history of the applicant. The prohibition includes any inquiry about conviction history on an employment application. An inquiry may be made only after the agency has determined the applicant meets the minimum employment qualifications. The restrictions apply to state agencies, all cities and counties, including charter cities and charter counties, and special districts in California.

The ban goes into effect on July 1, 2014.

A copy of the Assembly Bill 218 is available here:

Illinois Bans the Box for State Hiring

Illinois Governor Pat Quinn issued an Administrative Order on October 3, 2013, banning the box on employment applications for all state and local agencies. The ban-the-box initiative is the elimination of questions about an applicant’s criminal history on a job application. The Administrative Order also announces new guidelines and procedures relating to the process for evaluating, interviewing and selecting candidates for employment.

Effective immediately, questions about an applicant’s criminal history will be removed from all state employment applications. An Authorization for Release of Criminal History Information form will be used whenever a criminal background check is required for certain positions. Refusal to complete and sign the Authorization form is reason for the State to no longer consider a candidate for a position.

In keeping with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s guidelines, the authorization form must inform the applicant that it is the policy of the State not to base employment decisions on the criminal history of an applicant unless one or two factors apply: either federal or state law prohibits the hiring, or the applicant is convicted of an infraction that is reasonably related to the position sought. Denial of employment based on criminal history must be consistent with business necessity, and the State’s duty to serve and protect its citizens.

The State will create a separate self-disclosure form for state agencies to use only for applicants who are eligible and are being considered for employment. If a candidate voluntarily discloses information about prior criminal history in an interview, the State is required to tell the person that the information will be considered, as appropriate, and at a separate point in time.  A candidate may be excluded from consideration based on criminal history only if the offense is job-related and consistent with business necessity. In these cases, the state must consider (1) the nature and gravity of the offense; (2) the time that has elapsed since the conviction and/or completion of the sentence; and (3) the nature of the job being sought.

The State may conduct a criminal history background check only after a candidate is found to be eligible and is being considered for a specific position. Only current convictions may be considered when making hiring decisions. Arrests or convictions that have been pardoned, expunged, or sealed, may not be considered. However, the State may consider information indicating the applicant has engaged in acts that could impact their suitability for the position.

The Administrative Order may be viewed here:

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.