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

November 28, 2017

Washington Law Bars Retaliatory Discrimination against Job Applicants, State Supreme Court Holds

November 28, 2017

Employers who refuse to hire job applicants who opposed discrimination in a prior job may be sued for retaliation under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), the Washington Supreme Court has held in a unanimous decision. Zhu v. North Central Educ. Servs. – ESD 171, No. 94209-9 (Nov. 9, 2017). The Court ruled that WLAD creates... Read More

November 10, 2017

The Speak Out Evolution from Ms. Magazine to #MeToo: The Time Is Now for Employers to Re-Examine Their Practices

November 10, 2017

In a November 5, 2017 article, The New York Times harkened back to the 1977 Ms. magazine cover depicting sexual harassment on its cover. The point was to illustrate the fact that the 1977 Ms. cover is just as relevant today as it was then. In 1986, more than 20 years after the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the U.S. ... Read More

October 30, 2017

Chicago Adopts ‘Hands Off Pants On’ Law to Protect Hotel Workers from Sexual Harassment, Assault

October 30, 2017

To provide hospitality workers greater protections against sexual harassment and assault, the Chicago City Council passed the “Hands Off Pants On” Ordinance on October 11, 2017. The Ordinance requires all hotels in the City to adopt a panic button system and an anti-sexual harassment policy. The Ordinance was passed after months of... Read More

Related Practices