Search form

San Francisco Enacts 'Ban the Box' Law

By Jamerson C. Allen
  • February 26, 2014

Private sector employers in the City of San Francisco will have to comply with new “ban the box” legislation restricting questions about applicants’ criminal records on applications for employment and during job interviews. 

The Fair Chance Ordinance, No. 17-14, prohibits employers with at least 20 employees from inquiring about a job applicant’s criminal history on an employment application, including “checking the box” to indicate criminal convictions or other criminal justice system involvement. It also prohibits covered employers from asking about criminal history during an initial interview. The law applies not only to regular employees, but also those performing contracted or contingent work, or working through a temporary agency. The Ordinance becomes operative on August 13, 2014.

After the initial interview, the Ordinance prohibits the employer from asking the applicant about the following: 

  • arrests that did not result in conviction, unless charges remain pending; 
  • completion of a diversion program; 
  • sealed or juvenile offenses; 
  • offense s that are more than seven years old from the date of sentencing; and 
  • offenses that are not misdemeanors or felonies, such as infractions.

The employer must provide the applicant with a written notice before making any inquiry into the applicant’s criminal history and display a poster in the workplace developed by the City’s Office of Labor Standards Enforcement (OLSE). 

The Ordinance also restricts an employer’s ability to consider criminal history disclosed by an applicant. The information may be used in the selection process only if it has “a direct and specific negative bearing on that person’s ability to perform the duties or responsibilities necessarily related to the employment position.” To make this determination, the employer must evaluate whether the position offers the opportunity for the same or a similar offense to occur and whether “circumstances leading to the conduct for which the person was convicted . . . will recur.” In addition to job-relatedness, an employer also must consider the amount of time that has elapsed since the conviction and undertake an individualized assessment of specified factors that might show rehabilitation or mitigating measures. 

If an employer decides to reject an applicant because of criminal history, it must notify the applicant in writing before a final decision is made and again once the decision is finalized (similar to the pre-adverse action and adverse action notices required when utilizing a consumer reporting agency by the Fair Credit Reporting Act and corresponding California state law). Applicants have seven days to provide notice of an error, rehabilitation or other mitigating information. The employer must take reasonable time to evaluate the information and reconsider the proposed adverse action before taking final action. 

Employers must maintain records of employment, application forms and other relevant records for at least three years. An employer also must permit the OLSE, with appropriate notice, access to the records. 

Violations of the Ordinance can expose an employer to significant liability. The City is authorized to pursue civil remedies, including injunctive relief, reinstatement of an aggrieved applicant or employee, back pay, benefits and $50 per day for each day the Ordinance is violated, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Administrative enforcement with less severe sanctions is permissible for the first months. 

Other cities, including Seattle, Washington, also have enacted “ban the box” legislation. (See our article, Seattle City Council Votes to Limit Inquiries into Job Applicants’ Criminal Backgrounds.) Four states (Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Rhode Island) have adopted similar restrictions. At the federal level, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued guidance in 2012 seeking to restrict pre-employment inquiries into applicants’ criminal backgrounds. (See our article, EEOC Issues New Enforcement Guidance on Use of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment.)

For further information or assistance in developing strategies for complying with the Ordinance, please contact the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

©2014 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

June 15, 2017

Business Group Files Amended Complaint in Lawsuit Challenging Philadelphia Wage History Law

June 15, 2017

Philadelphia’s Wage History Ordinance, initially scheduled to take effect on May 23, 2017, remains on hold. The Ordinance has been subject to a federal court stay pending resolution of a lawsuit for a preliminary injunction brought by the Chamber of Commerce for Greater Philadelphia. The City of Philadelphia agreed to halt enforcement of... Read More

June 15, 2017

Oregon Enacts Expansive Pay Equity Law

June 15, 2017

The Oregon Equal Pay Act of 2017 greatly extends pay equity protections to a variety of protected classes, prohibits employers from asking for applicants’ salary history, and expands existing remedies available to employees. House Bill 2005 also offers key protections and a safe harbor for employers. The majority of the Act’s... Read More

June 9, 2017

Make Room on Your Bulletin Board for the Nevada Pregnant Workers’ Fairness Act Notice

June 9, 2017

Nevada employers must post a notice on the Nevada Pregnant Workers’ Fairness Act immediately. Governor Brian Sandoval signed the Act into law on June 2, 2017, and the notice provisions took effect upon signing. All other provisions of the Act will take effect on October 1, 2017. Under the Act, most employers with at least 15 employees... Read More

Related Practices