Rhode Island Enacts Ban-the-Box Legislation

By Michael Klazema on 8/5/2013

Current law in Rhode Island restricts employers from inquiring about arrests. Senate Bill 357 amends Chapter 28-5 of the Rhode Island General Laws entitled “Fair Employment Practices.” With its passage, the bill makes it an “unlawful employment practice” for an employer to inquire about any convictions before the first interview. However, employers may ask an applicant for information about his or her criminal convictions at the first interview or thereafter.

There are two specific exceptions provided in the law allowing employers to inquire about convictions before the first interview. An exception is provided if a federal or state law or regulation creates a disqualification from employment based on a person’s conviction of one or more specified criminal offenses. Another exemption is made if an individual must be bonded for a position and a conviction of one or more specified criminal offenses would disqualify the applicant from obtaining the bond.

Rhode Island joins California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, and Minnesota, in passing ban-the-box legislation. There are also many cities across the United States that have passed various forms of ban-the-box ordinances. It is a trend we expect to continue.

You may access Senate Bill 357 here:

 City of Buffalo Enacts “Ban the Box” Ordinance

The City of Buffalo recently enacted a new ordinance that essentially bans the box.  Banning the box refers to the elimination of an inquiry on a job application into a person’s criminal history.  The new ordinance prevents the City of Buffalo, its vendors, and any employer in Buffalo with at least 15 employees from asking questions about an applicant’s prior criminal convictions during the application process. (The ordinance does not specify whether an employer must have 15 employees in Buffalo to be subject to the ordinance.)

The new ordinance prohibits an employer from inquiring into or requiring an applicant to disclose or reveal a criminal conviction during the application process and prior to the first interview. The application process begins when an applicant inquires about employment and ends when the employer has accepted an employment application. If an employer does not conduct interviews, the ordinance requires the employer to inform the applicant whether he or she must undergo a criminal background check before employment commences.

Employers hiring for licensed trades or professions, including interns and apprentices, may ask applicants the same questions asked by the licensing body in accordance with New York state law. Also, when hiring for some positions, an employer may inquire about certain convictions or violations that would be considered barrier crimes under state or federal law.

The ordinance specifically requires employers to comply with Article 23-A of the New York State Correction Law when considering an applicant’s prior criminal conviction in determining suitability for employment. Article 23-A protects an applicant from discrimination based on a past criminal conviction unless the employer considers eight factors to determine that the conviction disqualifies the applicant.

Exemptions to Buffalo’s new ordinance are authorizations provided by other applicable law, and hiring for the police and fire departments. Also exempted from the ordinance are public and private schools, and any public or private service provider of direct services specific to the care or supervision of children, young adults, senior citizens, or the disabled.

The ordinance has an effective date of January 1, 2014. The amended bill is not yet available, although the text of the bill passed by the legislature is viewable here:

Article 23-A of the New York State Corrections Law is available 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.