County to consider “banning the box”

County to consider “banning the box”

Ordinance would benefit qualified people with criminal past

news@theeveningtimes.com

Crittenden County is studying an ordinance which would revise its jobs applications and do away with a provision requiring applicants to check a box to disclose any criminal history.

The ordinance to “ban the box,” as it is called nationwide, was introduced by Justice Hubert Bass who said the current application is unfairly discriminatory and denies felons who are qualified a second chance.

“We say we believe in giving people second chances,” Bass said. “This would do that. Memphis has this. So Crittenden County has a chance to do this and it is the right thing to do.”

Twenty-three states and over 100 counties have changed their job applications to remove the box from their hiring process.

Edmond Sims, Memphis District Resource Manager for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, told the Quorum Court that having a blanket policy against hiring convicted felons leaves the county open to possible legal action.

“Arrest and conviction is one of the hot topics for employers,” Sims said.

“Rejecting a person based on a past conviction can have a detrimental impact on certain groups of individuals.”

According to a 2006 study, one in every 2,025 white men have a felony conviction compared to one in 79 Hispanic men and one in every 33 African-American men.

“So you have a higher percentage of a certain demographic that have arrest records,” Sims said.

Sims said the EEOC advises employers to put a common sense policy in place which takes into consideration three factors when deciding whether or not to hire or reject an applicant with a felony conviction or arrest on their record: the nature of the crime or criminal activity; the amount of time that has elapsed since the conviction; and the nature of the job the applicant is applying for.

“All of those things we try and educate human resources managers when they develop a policy,” Sims said.

“For example, if someone had a misdemeanor 15 years ago and checks that box and it doesn’t have anything particular to do with that job, then that opens you to a possible discriminatory complaint because what does that misdemeanor from when I was 16 have to do with the maintenance job I am applying for? So those are some of the things you want to take into consideration.”

Sims also told the justices that just because someone has been arrested does not mean they were convicted.

“Even a policy based on rejecting applicants based on an arrest record has a detrimental impact on a certain class and you must evaluate if that applicant actually engaged in that conduct,” Sims said.

Sims said the EEOC brought a lawsuit against Pepsi and reached a $3 million settlement because it had a blanket policy of not hiring individual with a criminal record and negatively impacted over 300 African-American applicants.

“So that tells you that there are cases out there that we have litigated,” Sims said. “So having just a blanket policy saying I’m not going to hire somebody based on them having a record, that’s not going to pass the eye test. All of these things have to go in to that. So we try and educate employers because a lot of employers don’t know that.”

Justice Lisa O’Neal questioned how they would know to ask if a person was a convicted felon if it is on the application.

“I’ve owned a small business for years,” O’Neal said. “We’ve hired felons.

But they have explained that it was a bad decision or that they were young. And they have been wonderful employees who go on to better careers. But I still want to know ‘yes, I’m a felon,’ or ‘no, I’m not.’ I still want that knowledge.” Sims said banning the box does not mean that an employers can not still require the applicant to pass a background check. However, it makes it less easy to discriminate based on past criminal background.

“You’re going to still do a background check,” Sims said. “You’d be crazy not to. I mean, we do background checks on our boyfriends and girlfriends today. But what we have found is that a lot of people are disqualified when they even get to that part. During the hiring process the background check will find out of a person has these things.”

Justice Ronnie Sturch questioned whether by “banning the box” they could legally still reject an applicant if they had a sex crime conviction.

“I’m not opposed to this,” Sturch said. “I think this is something we should look at. But would that not be appropriate once you have gone through those applications to know before the interview is conducted?”

Justice Vickie Robertson agreed.

“I would not want to be placing an employee of the county in that position where he or she would be working in the road department out in the rural areas where children were around,” Robertson said.

Robertson also pointed out that while the county’s application does ask applicants to disclose felony convictions, they also have a space which allows them to explain the nature of the offense.

“So we do give you an opportunity to explain,” Robertson said. “So we’re not just blanket saying yes or no. We are trying to do it in the right way.”

Sims said while that scenario would legally cover the county, all employers should keep an open mind and be able to justify their decision.

“You just came up with

statefarm. com

your policy,” Sims said.

“You justified about why you wouldn’t want to hire that person for that job because they came in contact with kids. You met that threshold. You just want to keep your mind open and not cloud your mind. You want the best qualified candidate for the job. So knowing these things before the interview could cloud your mind. You have to make sure it is a business necessity and that everything flows from those three.”

Justice Tyrone McWright said he has been following “ban the box for years,” but is concerned that there could still be discrimination if it isn’t being enforced.

“It’s a good movement,” McWright said. “I agree with the movement. But I’m black and we are in the South. So I have been discriminated against. I don’t want smokescreens. I don’t want to be part of a movement if it is a mere formality. Don’t sell me a wet dream. Don’t tell me I am free then I get past the background check and I am still discriminated against.

If it’s not going to be effective,

don’t be playing these games.” DeAndre Brown, a Memphis pastor who helped pass ban the box in that

city, said Crittenden County has a chance to give hope to a hopeless group.

“This is a hot button issue,” Brown said. “But discrimination is wrong. It is wrong to discriminate against someone solely on a conviction. You now have a chance to tell someone who not even attempted to apply, that now they have a chance to get that job if they apply.”

O’Neal suggested the court refer the matter to the personnel committee to study and bring it back for a vote in July.

“I think we need to look at the wording carefully before we make a decision,” O’Neal said.

Robertson agreed.

“I agree it needs to go to the personnel committee to review this and come back with some recommendations,” Robertson added.

Bass said he was disappointed by the delay, but pledged to push on.

“I didn’t bring it to committee because every time you do it dies,” Bass said.

“I’m not going to let it die.

It will be on the agenda next month.”

By Mark Randall