Outten & Golden: Empowering Employees in the Workplace

Posts Tagged ‘background checks’

California Just Passed Landmark Law to Stop Bosses From Discriminating Against People with Convictions

Monday, November 6th, 2017

In an important victory for formerly-incarcerated workers fighting employment discrimination, Calif. Gov. Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill 1008 into law on October 14, establishing some of the strongest “Ban the Box” legislation in the country. Brown’s signature can be attributed to tireless organizing on the part of formerly incarcerated individuals and their advocates.

One of the biggest challenges facing people returning from prison is employment. Many jobs require applicants to check a box if they have ever been convicted of a crime, but offer no opportunity to explain the circumstances of their arrest. Employers often disregard formerly incarcerated individuals, regardless of their given situation. “Banning the Box” removes this question from applications, requiring businesses to assess the job-seekers’ criminal background only after the individual’s qualifications have been considered.

Under AB 1008, or the California Fair Chance Act, restrictions on employers’ criminal background checks have been extended to private companies. This means that, as of January 1, 2018, no California business with five or more employees will be allowed to ask about or consider an applicant’s conviction history before an employment decision is made.

The legislative victory is the culmination of a fight that has lasted more 14 years, as the grassroots organizing project All of Us or None started the campaign during the early 2000s. All of Us or None sprung out of the group Legal Services for Prisoners with Children (LSPC.)

LSPC’s Communications Director Mark Fujiwara spoke with In These Times about the bill. Formerly incarcerated himself, Fujiwara emphasized that his group’s organizing was primarily led by individuals who had spent time in prison—and have experienced the system firsthand. “Having a grassroots organizing project like All of Us or None is key to creating a sense of community and empowerment for directly-impacted people and our families, as every aspect of the prison industrial complex is designed to separate and isolate people,” he said.

Sandra Johnson is another formerly incarcerated member of LSPC who was on the frontlines of California’s “Ban the Box” fight, testifying during hearings and advocating to legislators. She told In These Times that she was fired from her job of six years after her former employer accused her of concealing her conviction history. “It was devastating,” she told In These Times, “I don’t want anyone else to feel what I felt.”

AB 1008 also received a visibility boost from high-profile supporters like the musician John Legend. About a month before its passage, Legend wrote a letter to Governor Brown calling on him to act on the issue. “For too long, these men and women have been defined by the worst moments of their lives,” Legend wrote. “They have been stigmatized, even after paying their debt to society, and? ?they? ?have? ?seen how? ?a? ?criminal? ?record? ?takes? ?a? ?wrecking? ?ball? ?to? ?future? ?employment.”

“Ban the Box” legislation is particularly important in California. According to the National Employment Law Project (NELP), nearly one out of every three California adults has an arrest or conviction on their record. That’s roughly 8 million people statewide. “The old approach didn’t serve any of us well,” NELP staff attorney Phil Hernandez told In These Times. “When 8 million people across the state are effectively shut out of employment, that shrinks the economy, undermines public safety, and harms families and communities. For those reasons, this new law—which aims to give people with records a fair chance at employment—will ultimately benefit all of us.”

NELP studies also show how restrictive hiring practices have a devastating impact on children and families. Almost half of U.S. children have at least one parent with a record. According to a survey with family members of formerly incarcerated individuals, 68 percent said that those who were parents had trouble paying child support after being released from prison. One study of formerly incarcerated women revealed that 65 percent of them were relying on a family member for financial support.

The fair hiring movement has gained considerable steam in recent years. AB 1008 makes California the 10th state to ban the box for public and private sector workers. Twenty-nine states now ban the box for public employees, and five of them have done so this year: Utah, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Kentucky. In 2015, President Obama endorsed the practice for federal employees. There are also increasing efforts to extend ban the box policies to colleges. In June, Louisiana became the first state to block public universities from asking applicants about their criminal history.

This article was originally published at In These Times on November 6, 2017. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Michael Arria covers labor and social movements. Follow him on Twitter: @michaelarria

How Ending DACA Hurts All Low-Wage Workers

Tuesday, September 5th, 2017

This morning Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the Trump administration will “wind down,” and in six months, end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), a Department of Homeland Security initiative put in place in 2012 that temporarily deferred the deportation of approximately 800,000 young immigrants who were brought to the United States as children. DACA has been an unqualified success and has benefited not only the DACA recipients themselves, but also the country and the economy.

The young immigrants who met the requirements and passed the necessary background checks for DACA were promised by the federal government that they would not be removed from the United States for two years at a time, as long as they kept applying to renew, kept a clean criminal record, and were either enrolled in school or graduated, or serving in the military or honorably discharged. Because of these requirements, we know that nearly all of the recipients are deeply integrated into their local American communities and labor markets.

Along with protection from removal, DACA recipients are entitled to receive an employment authorization document (EAD), allowing them to be employed in the United States legally, along with certain other benefits. More than 100 legal experts and 20 state attorneys general have recently argued that DACA is a lawful use of the executive branch’s prosecutorial discretion, and as I have written before, the granting of an EAD to deferred action recipients is clearly authorized by statute. Together this means that eliminating DACA is entirely a political decision and not a legal one. The impact of this political decision is significant: 800,000 young immigrants—many of whom have never known another country except when they were small children—will become instantly deportable and lose the ability to work legally and contribute to the United States, and will be effectively left without labor rights and employment law protections in the workplace.

To call this decision tragic is an understatement. Not only is it inhumane—after President Trump promised to treat DACA recipients with “heart”—but the evidence is clear that DACA has positively benefited the U.S. labor market. The vast majority of DACA recipients are employed, 87 percent, and on average DACA recipients saw their wages increase by 42 percent after receiving an EAD. Those gains—and the higher tax revenue to the federal and state and local governments that have accompanied it and benefited public coffers—are now in jeopardy.

President Trump has also repeatedly voiced his desire to help improve working conditions for American workers, but by ending DACA he is harming the U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents who are employed alongside DACA recipients. Once DACA recipients lose their work authorization, they will effectively be unable to complain when they are paid below the minimum wage, aren’t paid for overtime hours, or when their employer subjects them to unsafe conditions at the workplace. All immigrant workers who are unauthorized are often too afraid to speak out when employers take advantage of them, because they know their bosses can threaten them with deportation and use their immigration status to retaliate against them. The impact of this is not theoretical: research has shown that unauthorized immigrants suffer much higher rates of wage theft than U.S. citizens. The reasonable fear unauthorized workers feel keeps them docile and quiet, which in turn diminishes the bargaining power of Americans who work alongside unauthorized workers. Ending DACA and forcing these young workers out of the formal, regulated labor market, thus making them easily exploitable, will not help American workers, it will do the opposite.

Ending DACA will destroy the educational and employment prospects of 800,000 young immigrants who did nothing wrong, while at the same time hurting the wages and labor standards of American workers. If President Trump were serious about improving labor standards for working people, he would reconsider and reverse his decision.

 This blog originally appeared at In These Times on September 5, 2017. Reprinted with permission.
About the Author: Daniel Costa has been director of immigration law and policy research since 2013, having joined EPI in 2010 as an immigration policy analyst. An attorney, his current areas of research include a wide range of labor migration issues, including the management of temporary foreign worker programs, both high- and less-skilled migration, immigrant workers’ rights, and forced migration, including refugee and asylum issues and the global migration crisis.

Los Angeles bans criminal history checkboxes on job applications

Wednesday, December 14th, 2016

Companies in the nation’s second-largest city must stop requiring job applicants to disclose criminal convictions on hiring forms next year after Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti signed a “Ban the Box” law there on Friday.

The law does not prevent companies from conducting background checks once they have made a conditional job offer to a finalist. But it eliminates a standardized checkbox question about previous run-ins with the law, a common feature of job paperwork that makes it much harder for people to get back on their feet after serving their time. Firms with fewer than 10 employees are exempt from the law.

Sometimes called fair-chance hiring laws, such restrictions on how hiring managers solicit information about applicants’ criminal histories have grown in popularity over the past few years.

But the laws have typically applied only to hiring that involves taxpayer money, at government agencies and vendors who do business with the government. When President Obama moved to ban the checkbox last year, the executive action he took was limited to federal government hiring.

Inmates at a crowded California prison. CREDIT: AP Photo/Eric Risberg, File

Out of 24 states with fair-chance hiring laws, just nine extend to the private sector. Los Angeles is the 15th local jurisdiction to extend ban-the-box thinking to private firms. Among the five largest American cities, only Houston has yet to ban the checkbox.

Between 60 and 75 percent of people coming out of prison are unable to find work in their first year back on the street. Research indicates that an applicant’s chances of a callback drop by half if they indicate a criminal record—though white applicants who check the box fare significant better than black ones. There is also evidence that people who get far enough into the process to actually meet with a company representative are much more likely to get an offer despite their record—a key argument for eliminating the check-box filtering mechanism.

The idea’s spread during the latter years of Obama’s tenure seemed emblematic of the broader re-evaluation of a criminal justice system that is more punitive than rehabilitative. Formerly incarcerated people and their supporters rallied in front of the White House in 2015 to call for action, sharing stories of the hardships they faced in finding legitimate work after re-entering society.

The administration’s eventual move on hiring paperwork was just one in a flurry of progressive reforms to the incarceration system, all of which may be in jeopardy once president-elect Donald Trump takes office in January.

Americans leaving prison face high hurdles to regaining their economic and social footing without returning to crime. These obstacles are complicated to dismantle, rooted as they are in societal and individual prejudices about people with criminal pasts.

Policy changes can’t will charity into people’s hearts, of course, and there’s even some evidence to suggest that personal prejudices around the formerly incarcerated are so entrenched that fair-chance laws trigger ugly unintended consequences.

Two groups of researchers have published analyses suggesting that hiring managers simply begin ruling out young black men by default when they know they can’t ask about criminal history in the initial stages of their search. One of those studies outright argues that banning the checkbox does more harm than good.

But as the National Employment Law Project notes, that analytic conclusion gets things backward.

“Rather than identifying the root of the problem—which is both coupling criminality with being African American and the dehumanizing of individuals with records—the argument blames the reform,” NELP researchers wrote in response. “This distinctly economic framework, which views employers as entirely rational actors, fails to appreciate the extent to which negative racial stereotypes continue to plague the hiring process.”

Background checks: It’s not a “good thing”

Wednesday, December 11th, 2013

Christian SchreiberConsider the following hypothetical.  You own a restaurant and you’re looking for an assistant to the head chef.  The applicant needs to be able to cook, yes.  But the position also requires administrative skills – ordering, inventory, relationships with vendors and staff.  Creativity with the menu would be a plus.  A woman comes with lots of relevant experience. You notice she has a six-month interruption in her resume in late 2004, early 2005.

Years ago, an interview might have sufficed; perhaps you would have called her references, or tried her out on a lunch shift.  Today, in addition to the tryout and the references, you ask her to authorize a background check.  In the meantime, she wows you on the lunch shift.  Her plates look great.  She cleverly rearranges the pans between orders.  Then you get back her background check: she was convicted in federal court of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators.  Does she get the job?

While the dark potential of our information age remains thankfully unrealized, the workplace remains a frontier of personal data collection and snooping.  TheACLU claims that “it receives more complaints about privacy in the workplace than about any other issue.”

For workers, this unquenchable thirst for more information often first presents itself under the auspices of “background checks” (called “consumer reports”) required by employers.  Where background checks were once the province of private investigators and reserved for high-level executives, now even low-wage workers are asked to authorize employers (and potential employers) to investigate their “character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living.”  The trend is dangerous and often serves as the pretext for discrimination that would otherwise be prohibited under State and federal anti-discrimination law.

One of the most popular myths is that employers who screen candidates for credit histories and criminal records can reduce their potential liability from “bad hires.”  Some courts have even adopted the rhetoric that background checks embrace a “common sense” approach because they help employers “better evaluate the trustworthiness, reliability, and effectiveness of prospective employees.”  Yet, while other “common sense” claims hold up based on evidence of their truth, in this arena, employers have never even been asked for any proof that credit and criminal background checks increase retention rates, worker productivity, or diminish liability for negligent hiring or supervision.

In fact, consumer reports are notoriously flawed. The Federal Trade Commission and its successor, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, have claimed there may be as many as 42 million Americans with errors on their credit reports.  But this is only part of the problem.  Despite propaganda from the industry, race and gender result “substantial differences in credit scores across racial groups…with blacks and Hispanic whites having notably lower credit scores than other racial groups. These racial differences persist, even after controlling for other demographic characteristics such as age, marital status, and an estimate of income.”  Though the law is still evolving in this area, denying employment on the basis of a bad credit history, therefore, may be tantamount to denying employment on the basis of race.

For workers with criminal histories, background checks present a more obvious and intractable problem.  As a practical matter, criminal background checks are often harmful beyond the criminal conviction history they may include.

Like credit histories, they are frequently incorrect—sometimes the reports mix up identities (are you the same “Michael Miller”?), omit essential information about the offense or the disposition, or misstate charge levels or convictions.  By the time such errors are challenged or corrected (companies have up to 30 days), employers have already moved on to the next applicant.  This can also involve purely practical considerations: employers may understandably have difficulty sifting through charging codes, references to statutes, or interpreting dismissals and dispositions.  Is it worth understanding a complicated report when a stack of “simple reports” offers a large enough applicant pool?

Or consider an individual who has had her record “expunged,” a process whereby the individual withdraws a guilty plea and the court dismisses the charges.  Consumer reporting agencies often unlawfully report both the conviction and the dismissal, which they then claim is “factually accurate.”  One can fairly ask what purpose the expungement serves if it fails to shield the conviction from later disclosure.

As the government grows more opaque, criminal records have become more public.  The increase in computerized public records has made background checks easier and cheaper to obtain.  What once required a trip to the courthouse is now accomplished by a few seconds at the keyboard.  Consumer reporting agencies use sophisticated databases to package, market and sell criminal record information and credit histories to anyone with curiosity and a credit card.

This isn’t to suggest that childcare providers shouldn’t have access to criminal records of convicted child abusers, or that employers should not be able to discuss resume gaps with applicants and evaluate a potential employee’s record on a case-by-case basis.

Ultimately, given the over-representation of African Americans and Latinos in the criminal justice system, using criminal background histories is itself a race-conscious undertaking.  This alone should give employers pause.  Blind reliance on background checks of dubious reliability used to prescreen applicants only encourages discrimination.  More importantly, it denies willing and capable workers, including ex-offenders, the opportunity to make an honest living.

This article was originally printed on CELA Voice on December 5, 2013.  Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Christian Schreiber joined Chavez & Gertler in July 2009 as a class action litigation associate.  Mr. Schreiber works primarily on cases involving consumer rights, employment, and financial services matters.  Prior to law school, he worked in Sacramento as a legislative aide for former California State Senator Joe Dunn, and served as Chief Investigator for the State Senate Select Committee to Investigate Price Manipulation of the Wholesale Energy Market.  Mr. Schreiber worked for several years as a freelance writer.  Mr. Schreiber was a class action litigation associate at Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky LLP in San Francisco before joining Chavez & Gertler.

EEOC loses battle (but not war) on discriminatory background checks

Wednesday, August 21st, 2013

Christian SchreiberWhen it dismissed a federal lawsuit last week, the U.S. District Court for Maryland made it even harder for workers with poor credit histories and past criminal convictions to find a job.  Civil rights advocates hope the decision is not a bellwether for similar cases pending around the country.

The lawsuit, brought by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, charged Freeman, a privately-held event-management company, with violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act through its use of credit and criminal background checks.  According to the EEOC’s complaint, the employer’s decision to use background checks to screen out job applicants amounted to discrimination because it disproportionately impacted African-American and male job applicants.

Freeman’s hiring process involved detailed inquiries into both the applicant’s credit histories and criminal backgrounds.  Freeman “regularly ran credit checks for 44 job titles,” and excluded all applicants from certain positions who met any of 12 different categories of purported credit-unworthiness.  Even common credit blemishes, such as credit card charge-offs, medical liens, unpaid student loans, or foreclosures would result in the applicant being rejected.

The Freeman court joined the chorus of employers extolling what some consider the “common sense” of performing credit and criminal background checks.    These proponents also ignore the studies demonstrating that credit problems do not predict employee performance, as well as those that document atrocious error rates on credit checks.   A report released by the Federal Trade Commission earlier this year found that a quarter of consumers identified errors on their credit report that might affect their credit scores.

In 2011, California limited the use of credit checks in employment.  After three prior attempts were vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger, the bill was itself an object lesson in persistence.  However, the law also established broad exceptions to the “prohibition” on employment-related credit checks, effectively blessing their use across jobs and industries where the need or utility has never been demonstrated.

In addition to the credit-check hurdle, Freeman’s standard employment application form asked, “Have you ever pleaded guilty to, or been convicted of, a criminal offense?”  Applicants were told certain convictions would not be considered in the hiring process (yeah, right), but the company acknowledged a “bright-line rule” that disqualified any applicant who “failed to disclose a conviction, seriously misrepresented the circumstances of a criminal offense, or made any other materially dishonest statement on the application.”

In June, the EEOC filed two similar complaints against Dollar General Corp and BMW, alleging that the companies’ use of criminal background checks resulted in a disparate impact against African-American job applicants.  Referred to as “disparate impact” cases, these types of challenges stand or fall on the persuasiveness of the parties’ statistical evidence.  In the EEOC v. Freeman case, the court let loose on the EEOC’s expert, excoriating his methodology and ultimately calling his findings “an egregious example of scientific dishonesty.” (Ouch.)  Though it may be possible to blunt the impact of Freeman simply by putting on better statistical evidence, the decision nonetheless entrenches practical misconceptions and legal standards that are hostile to workers.

These cases are being watched closely by consumer and civil rights advocates, who still hold out hope that the EEOC’s oversight of these employment policies will curtail the increasing use of background checks to screen out applicants.   Advocates hope Freeman doesn’t signal that more bad news lies ahead.

This article originally appeared on CELA Voice on August 19, 2013.  Re-posted with permission. 

About the Author: Christian Schreiber is an active member of the California Employment Lawyers Association, where he serves on CELA’s Legislative Committee and Wage and Hour Committee.  He is also a member of the American Constitution Society, the Public Justice Foundation, and the Consumer Attorneys of California. Mr. Schreiber received his B.A. from UCLA in 1996.

Your Rights Regarding Pre-employment Credit Checks

Sunday, June 30th, 2013

Donna photo redNevada has just joined the ranks of 9 other states that have outlawed the use of credit history to discriminate against potential employees. However, they’re still a minority. Still, there’s a clear trend in the states. According to the National Conference of State Legislators, “42 bills in 24 states and the District of Columbia have been introduced or are pending in the 2013 legislative session relating to the use the credit information in employment  decisions. Out of the total 42 bills, 39 address restrictions on the use of credit information in employment decisions.”

In most states, pre-employment credit checks are legal. Employers argue that bad credit are an indication that the person may embezzle or be dishonest. I say nonsense. People with good credit embezzle all the time. People with bad credit may have just had a run of bad luck, a nasty divorce, uninsured medical bills, or some other unavoidable financial disaster. Being poor is not the same as being dishonest.

The recession brought this issue to a head. Suddenly 10% of the population was unemployed. People with stellar credit found themselves in trouble. While government tends not to pay attention to issues affecting the poor, when it hits the middle class, suddenly everyone cares.

There have been multiple attempts to address this situation in Congress. All have failed. In my opinion the current Congress won’t do anything until the problem  starts to impact the upper class. We have a very anti-employee majority  in office. The only way things will change is if voters speak up and  tell their representatives to make employers butt out of their finances.

So, what do you do if you’re in the unlucky majority of states that still allow this invasion of your privacy?

I suggest honesty. If you have bad credit, be ready to explain your situation. Tell the interviewer your plan to address the situation. While being “in over your head” may be considered an indicator of potential dishonesty, it doesn’t mean you’re going to become an embezzler. If you can demonstrate that you have a plan to get out from under the debt, the HR department might feel reassured.

What are your rights if an employer runs your credit history?

If your potential employer is going to run a credit check, then they must comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act. This requirement covers anything the employer is getting from a consumer reporting agency that covers personal and credit characteristics, character, general reputation, or lifestyle, but not the HR department running your name on Google, checking out your Facebook page, or reading your blog.

If they are going to run a credit check, they have to give you a document solely for the purpose of telling you they intend to conduct a credit check. It was probably shoved in with a stack of papers they handed you with your application or pre-employment forms. They need your permission in writing.

They must also tell you if they’re about to deny a job, reassign, or terminate you because of what was disclosed in a credit report. They must give you written notice with a copy of your credit report and a document called “A Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.” This process does not apply to truckers.

Once the employer decides to use the report against you, they must then give another notice, this time telling you the name of the agency that did the credit report, saying the agency isn’t the one that made the adverse decision, and telling you how to dispute the information in the report with the agency. This notice can be verbal or in writing, unless you’re a trucker, in which case it must be written.

If an employer runs your credit history without permission, they’ve broken the law. If they don’t jump through all the hoops required under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, you have potential claims against them. In that case, contact an employment lawyer in your state to discuss your options.

The EEOC views the use of employment credit checks as potentially discriminatory against women and minorities. If you’ve been denied a job or had other adverse action taken against you by an employer based on bad credit, you might want to explore the possibility that you have a discrimination claim with an employee-side employment lawyer in your state.

This article was originally printed on Screw You Guys, I’m Going Home on June 21, 2013.  Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Donna Ballman‘s new book, Stand Up For Yourself Without Getting Fired: Resolve Workplace Crises Before You Quit, Get Axed or Sue the Bastards, was recently named the Winner of the Law Category of the 2012 USA Best Books Awards and is currently available for purchase. She is the award-winning author of The Writer’s Guide to the Courtroom: Let’s Quill All the Lawyers, a book geared toward informing novelists and screenwriters about the ins and outs of the civil justice system. She’s been practicing employment law, including negotiating severance agreements and litigating discrimination, sexual harassment, noncompete agreements, and employment law issues in Florida since 1986. Her blog on employee-side employment law issues, Screw You Guys, I’m Going Home, was named one of the 2011 and 2012 ABA Blawg 100 best legal blogs and the 2011 Lexis/Nexis Top 25 Labor and Employment Law Blogs.

She has written for AOL Jobs and The Huffington Post on employment law issues, and has been an invited guest blogger for Monster.com and Ask A Manager. She has over 6000 followers on Twitter as @EmployeeAtty. She has taught continuing legal education classes for lawyers and accountants through organizations such as the National Employment Lawyers Association, Sterling Education Services, Lorman Education Services, Alison Seminars, the Florida Association for Women Lawyers, and community organizations.  Ms. Ballman has published articles on employment law topics such as severance, non-compete agreements, discrimination, sexual harassment, and avoiding litigation. She’s been interviewed by MSNBC, Forbes, the Wall Street Journal, Lifetime Television Network, the Daily Business Review, and many other media outlets on employment law issues. She was featured on the Forbes Channel’s “America’s Most Influential Women” program on the topic of severance negotiations and non-compete agreements.

 

Your Rights Job Survival The Issues Features Resources About This Blog