5 ms·
"If an employer does decide to deny an applicant the position solely or in part because of the conviction history, the employer must make an individualized asse
by Dowwie 9y ago
"If an employer does decide to deny an applicant the position solely or in part because of the conviction history, the employer must make an individualized assessment of whether the applicant’s conviction history has a direct and adverse relationship with the specific duties of the job that justify denying the applicant the position."
You could drive a semi through that loophole
- frankc 9y agoIt's not really a "loophole", per se. It would be ludicrous to say that a bank should not be able to exclude someone from hiring if they have been convicted of a serious financial crime, or that a day care should not be able to exclude a convicted child molester. Now, will other companies take advantage of this so that they defeat the spirit of the law? Perhaps. But the fact that they need to make an assessment means that might be subject to review at some point.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- randyrand 9y agoIt's amazing we need to explicitly say this. This should be obvious, yet by many comments you wouldn't realize it.
- bertil 9y agoIt is obvious: I'm stunned that people on HN still use uninformed “but who will think of the children?!“ So to make it clear: as a day-care owner, you do not need to refuse employment to a previously convicted child-molester after they’ve successfully applied. You don’t because they violated their life-long-parole-like control and are in back in jail.
- golergka 9y agoAlternative would be allowing people convicted of violence towards children to be teachers, for example.
- EpicEng 9y ago"Oh, I see you spent four years in jail for molesting a 7 year old. Oh well, we certainly wouldn't want to discriminate, so please accept this offer to work in our day care" It's not at all unreasonable to exclude certain people for certain jobs based on their criminal history.
- BearGoesChirp 9y agoI'm pretty sure that would be an allowed reason to reject. But what if you are a small business and don't want the person there because you don't want the reputation of having someone with that particular criminal past working for you? Say you are a construction company that specializes in large play areas. Technically a child should never be on site while building the play area, and your workers will be gone before it is open for kids to play on, but the mere reputation association being made could cost business. Is merely the possibility of a bad reputation reason to reject? If so, the law is effectively pointless.
- bertil 9y agoNot sure they would be allowed to apply, so that argument might be a little sophistic.
- ggg9990 9y agoIt's a fully intentional loophole. You can still ban convicted criminals from employment. The law is trying to make sure that you do so after meeting the person, interviewing them, and convincing yourself that you want to hire them. Then you're free to withdraw the offer if the criminal history changes your mind.
- BearGoesChirp 9y agoIsn't there an even bigger loophole, where a non-California recommendation company can recommend hire/not-hire and suggest a salary. The hiring company never looks it up, the non-California company does, but they never give the information to the company so the company never violates the law. Of course, you'll have to wrap it up a little better (have the verification company also check skill sets and such), but effectively all you have to do is outsource the vetting process to somewhere outside of California to get around this.
- _rpd 9y agoYes, but every time you make such a decision to deny, you are opening yourself to a lawsuit. it just isn't worth it. The exclusion clause will likely find more use as a loophole ... > [Does not apply] to a position where an employer or agent thereof is required by any state, federal, or local law to conduct criminal background checks for employment purposes or to restrict employment based on criminal history. For purposes of this paragraph, federal law shall include rules or regulations promulgated by a self-regulatory organization
- mundo 9y agoYou're not opening yourself to a lawsuit, it's still perfectly legal to refuse to hire felons because "I don't like felons." You just can't avoid meeting them and interviewing them.
- _rpd 9y agoI strongly suggest that anyone considering denying someone employment for the reason "I don't like felons" seek legal counsel before putting this reason in writing to the rejected applicant.
- hota_mazi 9y agoIndeed. "It's relevant to ask the candidate their conviction history because they might steal our router, which would compromise our business".