3 ms·

I had the same questions. Apparently discovery of the prior conviction is what lead to them being fired: > When the company discovered Sohaib Akhter’s felony c

I had the same questions. Apparently discovery of the prior conviction is what lead to them being fired: > When the company discovered Sohaib Akhter’s felony conviction, it terminated both brothers’ employment during an online remote meeting on Feb. 18, 2025 from https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-jury-convicts-virgina-man-charges-relating-deletion-us-government-databases https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-jury-convicts-virgina... which is a better source on this. That prompts the question of why background checks are so lax that they were hired before this was discovered.

charonn0 5mo ago
The company involved here is apparently based in Washington, DC, which has a "Ban the Box" ordinance that limits employment background checks for most kinds of jobs. And apparently DC's version of the law is particularly strict.
- giantg2 5mo ago
  Shouldn't this force companies that need to pass a SOC2 out of the district? Doesn't SOC2 require background investigation of personnel with access to sensitive systems?
- calgarymicro 5mo ago
  The prevents them from asking before extending an offer, but it seems they could (and should) have checked after.[0] > However, an employer may ask about criminal conviction(s) after extending a conditional offer of employment (the employer can never ask about arrests or criminal acusations that aren't pending). An employer who properly asks about a criminal conviction can only withdraw the offer or take adverse action against the applicant for a legitimate business reason that is reasonable under the six factors* listed in the Act. One of the six factors is "Fitness or ability of the person to perform one or more job duties or responsibilities given the offense"[1], which they probably could have invoked after asking (though they never checked or didn't check thoroughly enough, so I guess it's moot). [0]https://ohr.dc.gov/page/returning-citizens-and-employment https://ohr.dc.gov/page/returning-citizens-and-employment [1]https://ohr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ohr/publication/attachments/EmployerFAQ_FINAL_120814.pdf https://ohr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ohr/publicat...

charonn0 5mo ago

The company involved here is apparently based in Washington, DC, which has a "Ban the Box" ordinance that limits employment background checks for most kinds of jobs. And apparently DC's version of the law is particularly strict.

giantg2 5mo ago
Shouldn't this force companies that need to pass a SOC2 out of the district? Doesn't SOC2 require background investigation of personnel with access to sensitive systems?
calgarymicro 5mo ago
The prevents them from asking before extending an offer, but it seems they could (and should) have checked after.[0] > However, an employer may ask about criminal conviction(s) after extending a conditional offer of employment (the employer can never ask about arrests or criminal acusations that aren't pending). An employer who properly asks about a criminal conviction can only withdraw the offer or take adverse action against the applicant for a legitimate business reason that is reasonable under the six factors* listed in the Act. One of the six factors is "Fitness or ability of the person to perform one or more job duties or responsibilities given the offense"[1], which they probably could have invoked after asking (though they never checked or didn't check thoroughly enough, so I guess it's moot). [0]https://ohr.dc.gov/page/returning-citizens-and-employment https://ohr.dc.gov/page/returning-citizens-and-employment [1]https://ohr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ohr/publication/attachments/EmployerFAQ_FINAL_120814.pdf https://ohr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ohr/publicat...