Many applicants are automatically rejected when they check the box that asks whether they have a criminal conviction.
Are convictions always relevant to the applicant’s suitability for the job?
It’s common for employers to check into the criminal records of job applicants. It’s safe to assume that many of these employers reject people with a record. But recent changes in laws around the country are limiting how and when employers can use convictions to reject applicants.
What Is a “Ban the Box” Law?
Several states and localities have passed laws to “ban the box” laws in recent years. The box referred to in the short-hand title of these laws appears on many job applications. Applicants are to check the box if they have ever been convicted of a crime, regardless of the nature of the crime, when it occurred, and what (if any) relevance it has to the job for which they are applying.
National trend
As of November 2013, 10 states had adopted ban the box policies (whether by law or administrative order) and of those, four had enacted laws that banned the box for private employers. The laws in the remainder of the states apply to public employers and companies contracting with governmental entities or receiving public funds.
Forty-three U.S. cities and counties, from San Francisco, California, to Jacksonville, Florida, have also enacted ban the box laws. As with some of the state laws, some local ordinances apply only to employers who contract with the government or who receive public monies, while some apply to private employers as well.
While these laws differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, they share certain basic features.
Basic features of ban the box laws
Most of the ban the box laws in the U.S.:
- prohibit employers from including a box or question on applications that asks the applicant whether she has prior convictions
- prohibit employers from conducting criminal background checks on applicants prior to either a first live interview or a conditional offer of employment
- require employers to take into consideration the amount of time that has passed since the offense leading to the conviction was committed
- require that any conviction considered be directly relevant to the job for which the applicant applied (such as a tax evasion conviction by an applicant for an accounting job)
- require employers to notify an applicant in writing of a rejection for employment based on a past conviction, and
- require employers to give a rejected applicant an opportunity to provide evidence of any inaccuracies in the criminal record, rehabilitation, or other mitigating factors.
Many of these laws apply only to employers of a certain size (for example, those with 10 or more employees).
“Sensitive” jobs exempted
In most jurisdictions that have enacted ban the box laws, jobs in child care or law enforcement are not subject to the ban, and applicants can be asked about criminal convictions. And, where the job is governed by a federal regulation requiring a background check, that job is also exempt from ban the box laws.
Responding to the EEOC
In enacting these provisions, the states, counties, and cities responded, in part, to a guidance issued in 2012 by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). Some of the laws incorporate language from that guidance into their text.
EEOC findings
In its 2012 guidance to employers, the EEOC cited a survey finding that 92% of employers reported using criminal background checks during some or all hiring. And, the EEOC noted that African Americans and Hispanics are arrested and jailed in proportions that far exceed their percentages of the general population of the U.S. (For example, according to the FBI, 28% of all arrests in 2010 were of African Americans, who make up just 14% of the population. And, according to a Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, the incarceration rates for both groups far exceed that for others in the general population.) The EEOC notes that these statistics show a disparate impact of arrest and incarceration policies on certain minority populations.
Guidance: best practices
In response, the agency issued the guidance to direct employers on best practices to avoid discriminating (whether intentionally or unintentionally) against the populations affected by the criminal justice system’s disparities. The EEOC advises employers to:
- eliminate policies or practices that exclude applicants because they have any criminal record
- train managers, hiring principals, and other decision-makers on employment discrimination law
- limit disqualifying offenses to only those that show the applicant is not fit for the job applied for
- limit inquiry into offenses to only those within a specified period of years prior to the application for employment, and
- conduct an individualized assessment of each applicant.
The guidance notes that some criminal record inquiries are required by federal law for airport security screeners, federal law enforcement officers, jobs in child care in federal agencies, bank employees, and port workers, among others. Inquiries into applicant criminal convictions are allowed for such jobs under federal anti-discrimination law.
EEOC has sued employers who did not ban the box
The EEOC guidance is not a law but the EEOC has filed discrimination lawsuits against two employers for allegedly using background checks in a manner that may have had a disproportionate effect on African American applicants. In each case, the agency alleged that the employer had rejected applicants who had past criminal convictions without assessing each applicant individually. In support of its claims, the EEOC cited statistical evidence that the companies’ policies led to disparities in the hiring rates of African American applicants.
Ex-Offender Rejection Policies Are Illogical
Putting aside the discriminatory effect of company policies rejecting applicants with criminal records, such policies defy logic. Individuals who are barred from legitimate employment due to past crimes (for which they have paid their debt to society) are more likely to be forced into sketchier and even illegal means to make ends meet. Giving ex-offenders a chance to participate in their communities and make contributions benefits the ex-offenders and society itself.
Check Your Local and State Laws; Know Your Rights
If you want to find out what the law is in your state and locality on employers and criminal background checks, the National Employment Law Projects Resource Guide (see the link above) is a good place to start. Another great resource is an attorney with experience in employment law in your area.

Posted on Vahe GTrustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Mr. Morales is really tough attorney and strong man. He never afraid of difficult cases and always fights like a knight. If you have some trouble in California, Mr. Morales' law firm really can help you.Posted on Jessy ATrustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Chris Morales was very professional and kind. He made sure I understood every step and always took the time to answer my questions. I really appreciated his honesty and calm approach. I’m truly grateful for his help and would recommend him without hesitation.Posted on Jasmine STrustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. I really appreciate Christopher Morales for his professionalism and for taking the time to fully explain the answers to my questions. There's a lot that can be answered through his website, which I appreciate as well.Posted on Nazera FTrustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Mr. Morales is a very eloquent speaker with a great knowledge of the law and related matters. After I asked a few questions, he was able to answer them clearly and I felt supported by someone who had expertise in this field. I feel that he is passionate about his work and leads with that when representing his clients. I highly recommend getting in touch with him if you have questions or need support regarding criminal law.Posted on Shawn STrustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. I've had some interaction with Mr. Morales directly as I was doing research on his law firm and him specifically. He took the time to answer my questions thoughtfully and with candor. I was left with a very strong impression about his skills as an attorney and how he can best help his clients. I also asked a couple of indirect questions to get a sense of his views on law, policy, and society and was impressed with his answers and was left with a highly favorable view of the man. I would definitely be considering him and his firm for services that I need.Posted on Yen NTrustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Mr. Morales is highly professional, friendly, and takes time to answer questions patiently.Posted on Rebekah sTrustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Mr. Morales was prompt and informative with answering my questions. He gave me detailed information and left it open to ask more if needed.Posted on RenatoTrustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Christopher Morales' most valuable trait is his straightforward honesty. He doesn't just tell you what you want to hear. Instead, he provides with a realistic legal perspective grounded in deep knowledge, ensuring you are well informed. I was also impressed how his firm leverages modern technology which makes the entire legal process more efficient, thus more affordable. For anyone needing a highly competent, modern, and direct attorney, I strongly recommend Christopher Morales.Posted on Claire MTrustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Mr Morales shows a great level of professionalism in his conversations and is approachable in personality. He was able to answer any questions I had and it was great to see his experience and knowledge reflected in the law firm website. I'm glad to have learned about his services.Posted on Karl bTrustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Mr. Morales was very knowledgeable and has answered all of my questions. Additionally, the website was full of very important information. I will be saving this website for future use. I am glad to have a place where I can run to if ever I need guidance with the law.