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 material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm that built its reputation on providing workplace law representation to management. Founded in 1958, the firm has grown to more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries including government relations, healthcare and sports law. More information about Jackson Lewis can be found at www.jacksonlewis.com.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

November 8, 2019

New Puerto Rico Law Limits Employers’ Use of Credit Reports in Employment Decisions

November 8, 2019

Puerto Rico has enacted legislation to limit the use of credit reports in making employment decisions. An “Act to Protect Employee’s Credit Information” (PR Act. No. 150 of October 8, 2019) prohibits employers from refusing to hire, dismissing, or otherwise discriminating against an employee or applicant because of the information in... Read More

November 5, 2019

Religious Accommodation and Patient Safety in Healthcare Industry

November 5, 2019

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires employers in the healthcare industry to provide a reasonable accommodation to employees’ sincerely held religious beliefs and practices. Common accommodation requests relate to: Exemptions from the flu vaccination Time off for Sabbath observance or to attend religious services Prayer... Read More

October 15, 2019

Third-Party Harassment and Discrimination: The Customer Isn’t Always Right

October 15, 2019

As fiscal year 2019 ends for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), it has announced it is pursuing several new discrimination suits, including one alleging a casino failed to protect female staffers from sexual harassment by patrons. Sexual misconduct and harassment have been in the national spotlight more than ever and... Read More

Related Practices