Search form

Ban-the-Box Laws in Spokane, Washington, and Kansas City, Missouri

By Susan M. Corcoran, Richard I. Greenberg, Brian J. Christensen and Bryan P. O'Connor
  • February 20, 2018

State and local jurisdictions have continued to consider and enact legislation restricting employers from inquiring about a job applicant’s criminal background during the initial stages of the application process. Two of the latest enactments are in Spokane, Washington, and Kansas City, Missouri.

Some ban-the-box ordinances are clearer than others, which makes multi-state and intra-state compliance tricky for employers. The intent of these laws, however, is clear: giving qualified candidates with a criminal history the opportunity to succeed in the workplace.

Spokane, Washington (effective June 14, 2018)

With certain exceptions, all private-sector employers within the Spokane city limits are covered by the Fair Chance Hiring Act. The ordinance prohibits employers from:

  • Advertising openings in a way that excludes people with arrest or conviction records from applying, such as using advertisements which state “no felons,” “no criminal background,” or which otherwise convey similar messages;
  • Including any question in an application for employment, inquiring orally or in writing, receiving information through a criminal history background check, or otherwise obtaining information about an employee’s arrest or conviction record until after the employee has participated in an in-person or video interview or received a conditional offer of employment;
  • Using, distributing, or disseminating an employee’s arrest or conviction record, except as required by law;
  • Disqualifying an employee from employment solely because of a prior arrest or conviction, unless the conviction is related to significant duties of the job or disqualification is otherwise allowed by the Act; or
  • Rejecting or disqualifying an applicant for failure to disclose a criminal record prior to initially determining the applicant is otherwise qualified for the position.

The ordinance does not cover employers that hire employees who will have unsupervised access to children under age 18 or a vulnerable person, that are in law enforcement, or that otherwise are required or permitted under federal or state law to conduct criminal background checks.

Regarding advertisements, Spokane employers may publicize a requirement for a criminal conviction background check, as long as there is no corresponding statement about automatic preclusion from employment. (For comparison, see our article, New York City Human Rights Commission Fair Chance Act Fact Sheet Offers Compliance Guidance.)

Under the ordinance, employers may not inquire about an applicant’s arrests or convictions until after the applicant has participated in an in-person, telephonic, or video interview or has received a conditional offer of employment.

If an employer receives conviction information, it cannot disqualify a candidate prior to an in-person interview or video interview solely because of a prior arrest or conviction, unless the conviction is related to significant duties of the job or otherwise permitted by law. While the ordinance omits “or received a conditional offer of employment,” in this provision, it would be prudent to follow this standard as it is also consistent with the type of analysis employers would undertake when conducting an individualized assessment as contemplated by guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

There is a grace period on the imposition of fines until January 1, 2019. Thereafter, violations of the ordinance can result in a $261 fine for each occurrence.

Kansas City, Missouri (effective June 9, 2018) [link ordinance]

Under the Kansas City ban-the-box ordinance, unless otherwise required by law, private employers with at least six employees may not inquire about an applicant’s criminal history until after the applicant has been interviewed for the position and the employer determines the individual is otherwise qualified for the position. The ordinance then states that “such inquiry may be made of all applicants who are within the final selection pool of candidates from which a job will be filled.”

The ordinance also makes it unlawful for an employer to make any decision to hire or promote a candidate because of the candidate’s criminal history, unless “the employer can demonstrate that the employment-related decision was based on all information available including consideration of the frequency, recentness and severity of a criminal record and that the record was reasonably related to the duties and responsibilities of the position.” This standard is similar to that in the relevant EEOC guidance.

To assist employers in determining “criminal history,” the ordinance specifies the following:

  • Record of a conviction, or a plea of guilty or no contest, to a violation of a federal or state criminal statute or municipal ordinance;
  • Records of arrests not followed by a valid conviction;
  • Convictions which have been, pursuant to law, annulled or expunged;
  • Pleas of guilty without conviction;
  • Convictions for which a person received a suspended impositions of sentence; and
  • Misdemeanor convictions where no jail sentence can be imposed.

The ordinance is an amendment of the Kansas City’s local Human Relations Act. Remedies available may be the same as for other violations, such as civil penalties, reinstatement, back pay, and actual damages.

***

Ban-the-box ordinances affect many facets of the hiring and employment process. All covered employers should review and revise, if necessary, their hiring practices, application forms, checklists, policies, and procedures to ensure compliance. Employers also should provide periodic training updates to employees.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to answer inquiries and provide assistance with local and multi-jurisdictional issues.

©2018 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

September 24, 2018

Time Spent in Security Screening Compensable under Laws of Nevada and Arizona, Federal Court Rules

September 24, 2018

The laws of Nevada and Arizona require employers to pay their workers for time spent going through security screenings at the end of their shifts, the federal appeals court in Cincinnati has ruled. Busk et al. v. Integrity Staffing Solutions et al., Nos. 17-5784 and 17-5785 (6th Cir. Sept. 19, 2018). While the U.S. Supreme Court held... Read More

September 24, 2018

Construction Industry Finding Ways to Increase Capacities

September 24, 2018

Labor shortages in the construction industry have contributed to curbed appetites for infrastructure reform on Capitol Hill, at least for now. The Trump Administration, adverse to the strategy of importing laborers with seasonal workers and temporary visas or exporting jobs to cheap-labor countries, is deploying federal resources to... Read More

September 24, 2018

Supreme Court Preview: 2018-2019 Term

September 24, 2018

The U.S. Supreme Court will begin its 2018-2019 Term with a docket full of cases significant to employers and businesses. Cases to watch involve questions on employment discrimination and class arbitration, among other things. Age Discrimination in Employment Act On the first day of the term, October 1, 2018, the Court will hear... Read More