Virginia Becomes the Next State to "Ban the Box"
Time 3 Minute Read

On April 3, 2015, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe signed an Executive Order that “bans the box” and prohibits Virginia agencies, boards, and commissions from asking questions about an applicant’s criminal history on employment applications.

The growing “ban the box” movement encourages employers to remove any questions on their job applications that ask applicants to check a box or otherwise indicate if they have a criminal history.  Proponents of this movement believe the elimination of such questions will reduce employer discrimination on the basis of criminal history.  With the signing of McAuliffe’s Order, Virginia joins fourteen other states, the District of Columbia, and over 100 localities that have already enacted some type of “ban the box” measure.

According to the Order, Virginia state agencies, boards, and commissions must delay asking an applicant about his/her arrest or conviction history until after making an initial determination regarding the applicant’s qualifications and skills.  However, the Order also explains that an initial disclosure of an applicant’s criminal history may still be required for certain positions classified as “sensitive.”

The Order does more than simply “ban the box” on public employment applications.  In addition, it mandates that any state employment decision based on an applicant’s criminal history must be “demonstrably job-related and consistent with business necessity” or result from a state or federal law that prohibits hiring an individual with a certain conviction for a particular position.

These provisions in mind, the Order does not guarantee employment to individuals with criminal histories.  In the words of McAuliffe, what is does do is provide such individuals with “the meaningful opportunity to compete for jobs in the Commonwealth.”  On one hand, the Order forces employers to consider an applicant’s actual qualifications before making a decision solely on the basis of a “checked” box.  And when employers finally do become aware of an applicant’s criminal history, they must only deny employment on the basis of such information when necessary.  As a result of this protection, McAuliffe hopes the Order “will remove unnecessary obstacles to economic success for Virginians who deserve a second chance.”

Other states, including Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Rhode Island, have passed “ban the box” legislation that explicitly extends application to private employers. While the Virginia Order only prohibits the conduct of public state agencies, it does “encourage” state government contractors and private employers operating within the Commonwealth to implement similar hiring practices.

For more information about the “ban the box” movement and its implications, please explore the section of HELP dedicated entirely to criminal background checks. We provide a wide variety of services to clients in this area and are happy to address your company’s concerns.

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 4 Minute Read

“Ban-the-Box” legislation has seen steady growth throughout the country for more than two decades.  Currently, there is no federal legislation on the topic for private employers but a good number of states have limited their ability to inquire about or make decisions based on a prospective employee’s criminal background history.

Time 4 Minute Read

Earlier this year, Harris County, Texas, which encompasses a substantial majority of the City of Houston, became the sixth Texas city or county to embrace a “ban the box” policy when it adopted the Fair Chance Policy.

Time 2 Minute Read

On October 20, 2021, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) issued a press release to announce its plans to use unspecified technology to conduct online searches for statements in job advertisements that violate the Fair Chance Act (“FCA”). According to the DFEH, during a one-day review, it was able to locate over 500 job advertisements that violated the FCA because they stated that the employer would not consider job applicants with criminal records.

Time 4 Minute Read

Uber Technologies, Inc. has been sued in a class action lawsuit alleging the company’s use of criminal background checks discriminates against Black and Latinx drivers. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on April 8, challenges Uber’s “unlawful use of criminal history to discriminate against its drivers in New York City as well as its brazen noncompliance with human rights and fair credit laws.”

Named plaintiff Job Golightly, a Black resident of Bronx County, New York, drove for Uber from 2014 through August 2020. Golightly claims that his criminal history consists of a single 2013 misdemeanor speeding violation from Virginia. According to the lawsuit, until 2017 Uber had relied solely on background checks conducted by the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC). Plaintiffs allege that in mid-2017, in response to negative news coverage on assaults committed by drivers, Uber began using the credit reporting agency Checkr to conduct additional background checks on current and prospective drivers. As a result, in August 2020 Uber allegedly conducted a background check on Golightly that revealed his 2013 speeding violation. One day later, Golightly claims that Uber deactivated him from its platform, preventing him from driving for the company.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page