Comments on: Are Criminal-Background Checks Discriminatory?

By: Kym

Kym — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 04:18:09 +0000

I have been subjected to repeated employment discrimination by prospective employers who are ignorant and ill-informed about the current state & federal laws re: this issue. In MN, Ban The Box has been a law as of 2009, despite this so many employers are clueless about how to treat those of us with minor, non-violent criminal histories, who have not reoffended in over 10+ years. Many thanks to those of you offering support in your posts. I do believe we need to safe & protected in our workplaces, but many of the so-called protective measures such as an extensive background check + credit check for a $10/hour office job is really killing a bunny with a steamroller approach.

By: christine

christine — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 01:31:06 +0000

There are a great deal of comments on here that almost have me convinced that employers shouldn’t perform background checks. Let’s not forget that all individuals who comment misdemeanors and felonies had an idea prior to the conviction of the recourse for their actions. Fair is not always kind, period. If an individual chooses to commit a crime then the aftermath of living normal will always be sketchy. I have a bump in my record, I’d prefer not to discuss on here and have paid a price for acting foolish. Each time I apply for a job I know that I can be turned away because of my foolish actions. Think about the basics, “Crime does not pay” and there are several sensitive jobs that won’t hire if your record is flawed. The best lesson for the future generation, stay clean and away from deviant behavior, finish high school, go to college and stay focused.

By: M

Mon, 31 Dec 2012 07:50:30 +0000

I had the unfortunate event of getting a disorderly conduct misdemeanor. The issue had to do with a cheating husband. I am 45 years old, white lady, no other convictions, educated, hard working. I cannot agree that past history is a prediction of future behavior. Now, I have a ball and chain wrapped around my foot. Colleges will not allow in, employers will not hire me,,,am I really so horrible? It seems that the idea is, ” once a criminal, always a criminal”. Is once a pattern, is a dot a polka dot? If so, and colleges and employers apparently think so, then be warned my next criminal event will be when I turn 90, so watch out!

By: David M

David M — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 16:45:51 +0000

I will have to disagree, Everyone makes mistakes. Maybe that person was going in the wrong direction in their life before they saw the light and decided to make a change for the better? It is inhumane to punish someone because they made a mistake. Let the check see how long its been since their last arrest and go from there. If its been 5+ years with no convictions, I feel it is safe to assume they’ve changed.

By: Jay Afpdams

Jay Afpdams — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 23:01:08 +0000

Why do you list convictions prior “references, job length, etc.”? As the federal government has recently stated you must take into account length of time since conviction, number, and relevance to the CURRENT position. In fact, with the ever increasing “ban the box” movement, now in over half the states and many major economic cities, you can not even ask about criminal history. If a 30 year old misdemeanor for a college shoplifting prank keeps you from hiring a qualified candidate, over a non-qualified candidate, than perhaps you should avoid “skipping church” as we’ll as re-evaluate your current business model.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 01:55:19 +0000

Why are arrest(s) that never lead to conviction EVER considered or accessible for that matter? If if I remember correctly, we are innocent when accused until proven otherwise?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 23 Jul 2011 12:02:55 +0000

I was convicted of selling marijuana when I was barley 18. I must say that at 18 you do not realize how the decisions you make will affect you in the future. I am now 30 years old and have worked for my company for 10 years. I was up for a promotion at the location that I was working, when the company that we were contracted to started running background checks on contractors. They deamed me a high risk employee for my conviction even though my work history was impeccable and I have taken many random drug screens since my employment. I was banned from the premises. I am very fortunate to have a good history with my company and have been moved to another location maintaining employement. However, management postions don’t come available very often, and I may not have another opportunity for many years to progress within my company because of this. My immediate supervisor stands behind me as well as our regional management and HR team; however, it doesn’t matter because our customer has banned me from their premises for a 12 year old felony. People are discriminated against everyday for a mistake that may be very distant in their past. How can someone be expected to become a productive member of society if they cannot be reintegrated after they finish their punishment? At a minimum there should be a statue of limitations on any non-violent offender regaurding background screens along with age considerations as well. It would also make sense to break offenses down into categorys that would link the crime to the job in question(so pedophiles could not work around children, fraudulent behavior could not work in finance, etc.). But, people should still be given a chance to move forword and prove that they can be productive members of society rather than a permanent underclass citizen for a mistake they may have made in the past.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 01:08:21 +0000

I believe that background checks are retaliation and a discriminatory tool for unethical business practice. In my case I had work for this company for 15 yrs . The company did not know of my criminal back ground at that time. Over the 15 yrs I had establish a relationship with in the company which also establish trust for a promotion from a driver to dispatcher and supervisor in about a 2 yr period. I decided to quit after 15yrs to learn how to drive trucks to make more money. After working nearly 2 yrs with another company I had an on the job injury. This cause me to reapply for my old job only to be denied employment because of a 20+ yrs old conviction.
At this point I feel the company used the background check as a tool to retaliate for a crime against society. The company decision to discriminate was based solely upon prejudice because I gave the company no ill reason over the 15 yrs not to rehire me as they have rehired other in the past.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 15:56:19 +0000

I believe that background checks are retaliation and discriminatory. In my case I had work for this company for 15 yrs work the company ever know of my criminal back ground. I had quit to learn how to drive trucks. I had got injured on the other job and I decided to return to my old employer. On the application I had put that I had been convicted over 20 +yrs ago. I was promoted from driver to dispatcher and supervisor with in 2yrs of being with the company.
When I reapplied ,the company ran a background check and I was deny employment.
I feel the company retaliate when they ran a background check when the company knew as being a good and reliable worker. I gave then no reason over the years not to rehire me. So the use of the background check was clearly retaliatory because I have a criminal background over 20 +yrs ago which lead the company to discriminate against me in denying me employment. for reasons not related to the job.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 00:11:02 +0000

Arrest records that lead to dismissal or not- guilty should NOT be accessible in a record check!! Last time I checked, a person is innocent until proven otherwise!! Why should that person be discriminated against in a potential job interview????