Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/26/2015ORDINANCE COMMITTEE October 26, 2015 4:35 PM Harold E. Getty Council Chambers Members Chairperson Mayor Pro Tem All Council Members Roll Call: Approval of Agenda, as proposed. NEW BUSINESS 1. Discussion of Ban the Box Language. Submitted By: _Abraham L_ Funchess, Jr., Executive Director, Waterloo Human Rights Suzy Schares, CMC City Clerk/Human Resource Director Nationwide, over 100 cities and counties have adopted what is widely known as "ban the box" so that employers consider a job candidate's qualifications first, without the stigma of a conviction record. These initiatives provide applicants a fair chance by removing the conviction history question on the job application and delaying the background check inquiry until later in the hiring. Momentum for the policy has grown exponentially, particularly in recent years. There are a total of 19 states representing nearly every region of the country that have adopted the policies California (2013, 2010), Colorado (2012), Connecticut (2010), Delaware (2014), Georgia (2015), Hawaii (1998), Illinois (2014, 2013), Maryland (2013), Massachusetts (2010), Minnesota (2013, 2009), Nebraska (2014), New Jersey (2014), New Mexico (2010), New York (2015), Ohio (2015), Oregon (2015), Rhode Island (2013), Vermont (2015), and Virginia (2015). Seven states — Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon and Rhode Island —have removed the conviction history question on job applications for private employers, which advocates embrace as the next step in the evolution of these policies. October 26, 2015 To the Members of the Waterloo City Council: Cedar Valley Citizens for Undoing Racism (CVCUR) wishes to go on record as unequivocally supporting the elimination of the automatic exclusion of persons returning from prison from employment due to a simple "box" on the application form that asks if they have ever been convicted of a crime. This has been referred to as "ban the box" and it has been endorsed by the Waterloo Commission on Human Rights. Public safety is an important concern of all citizens, and city government has a major role in promoting public safety through its various policy and funding decisions. Public safety requires that persons who violate the law and harm others face consequences for these actions, often including imprisonment. However, it is also important to public safety that those who serve their terms and are released from prison be successfully reintegrated into society, in order to reduce the risk that they will re - offend. Currently, according to law, only those convicted of certain egregious felonies can receive a life sentence. Nevertheless, any felony conviction becomes a life sentence if the slate at some point cannot be wiped clean and people given the opportunity to be productive citizens. Almost every expert will tell you that finding employment is crucial to successful re-entry. If a returning offender cannot find legal employment with which to support himself and/or his family at a dignified level, the temptation to return to illegal activities can become overwhelming. Most returning offenders do not want to re -offend, but our society often creates seemingly insurmountable barriers to their resumption of a normal life. Employment discrimination is surely one of those barriers. By "banning the box", we do not mean that employers can't make reasonable choices about whom to employ, based on the nature of their organizations. What we are seeking to prevent is the elimination of people from job pools arbitrarily based on the answer to a single question about their past. We want returning offenders to have the opportunity to discuss their past history with a potential employer, so that concerns can be addressed. Hopefully, this is a win -win for both the employer and the applicant. The employer may gain a very productive worker, while the applicant is given a major boost towards successful re-entry. A study in Durham, NC found that only one out of four applicants with criminal records were actually rejected by employers, once they had made it to the interview stage. The State of Iowa currently devotes considerable public resources to re-entry programs. The successful operation of those programs is seriously impeded by arbitrary forms of discrimination. Offenders are limited to a narrow range of jobs, and if one of those jobs is not available, they may not be able to fulfill the terms of their parole or probation. There has been widespread national support for banning the box. Seventeen states and numerous localities have instituted "ban the box" measures in recent years. Midwestern states that have cities or counties that have adopted this measure include Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, Minnesota, Missouri, and Ohio. Major cities that have adopted it include: Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Jacksonville, Memphis, New Haven, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Seattle. In addition, a number of major corporations have removed the box from their applications, including Target, Walmart, Home Depot, Bed Bath and Beyond, and Koch Industries. CVCUR was organized by people who had experienced the two day "Undoing Racism" training that has been offered in our community several times over the past five years. It was formed because people wanted to take action on some of the issues they'd learned about in the workshop. "Ban the Box" is an issue of racial justice because African Americans and Latinos are arrested and incarcerated at much higher rates than majority citizens. As Michelle Alexander has suggested, discrimination against returning offenders can become an indirect form of discrimination against people of color if they are not evaluated and given job opportunities in a fair and reasonable manner. We hope that Waterloo will make the same courageous decision that many other communities have made across the nation. Please vote to "ban the box" from all job applications. Thank you. R. Allen Hays On behalf of the CVCUR Steering Committee allen.hays@uni.edu 319-266-8406 The "Ban the Box" issue sounds as if it is a simple thing and that banning the box is merely an act of compassion, it isn't. It is true that a person who has been convicted of a felony has challenges even after the sentence has been served. However, if they have really turned over a new leaf (so to speak) there is an existing process for that change to be officially recognized. It is called Restitution of Citizenship Rights. It is a State of Iowa detailed process that is well thought-out. To admit it or not, this ban the box is an attempt to go around this process. However, this ban the box issue goes farther. It is moving the city into the private sector business decision making world. This is the city taking a step down the road of socialized control of business. More over it is, in my opinion placing a new liability on the city and those who vote for this city business requirement. While those supporting this issue try to cover their exposure by saying that post the application, the businesses can do their due diligence, that won't work for all as some will not have the resources nor the knowledge to carry through. More over, in the proposed ordinance (Section B, clause 2) even if the due diligence finds a felony record the business is barred from using it as a reason to refuse employment unless it is supported by some other reason. Which means the due Diligence was not required. Then in Section B, Clause 4, the business cannot reject the applicant unless there is a legitimate business reason. So it seems that the city will now have to have a new department to decide (for the business) what are legitimate business reasons and what are not legitimate business reasons. In section A, Clause 9, subsection d, It appears that it is a recognition that nothing in this proposed ordinance means anything when superseded by Federal and State law. This entire approach is silly at best, but if is what the leaders of Waterloo want, then stand up in the full public eye and go to the end of this path that is being created and make Waterloo a sanctuary city. Randy Herod 111 Highland Blvd. Waterloo, Iowa 50703 319-235-9660 herodsfoote@mchsi.com Q• A. Q. A. Q. A. Frequently Asked Questions What is "ban the box"? What is a fair -chance policy? "Ban the box" was the rallying cry of All of Us or None organizers that refers to removing the conviction history check -box from a job application. All of Us or None is a grassroots, civil rights organization led by formerly incarcerated and convicted people. In addition to delaying conviction history inquiries until later in the hiring process, fair -chance policies include the following: • Integrating the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) arrest and conviction record guidelines, which require employers to take into account time passed since the offense, whether the offense is related to the job position, and evidence of rehabilitation; and • Adopting strong standards of accuracy and transparency to maintain the integrity of background checks when they are required and to protect workers against arbitrary treatment in the hiring process. What doesn't a fair -chance policy do? An employer is not required to hire an individual under a fair -chance policy. In other words, the employer retains the discretion to hire the most qualified candidate. Some policies seek to limit background check inquiries to only those positions deemed sensitive or to limit the availability of certain criminal record information to only recent convictions. Other policies have no limitations on background check screening except as to delay any inquiries until later in the hiring process. See NELP's Best Practices and Model Policies, located in the NELP Fair Chance Toolkit. Do fair -chance policies work? Yes. Fair -chance policies have been so successful that some cities and states have expanded their policies to include private employers. Because policies were adopted starting in the early 2000s, several jurisdictions have had years of experience and success. The locations that have collected data on the fair -chance policies show an increase in hiring people with records. This is consistent with research that indicates that personal contact with an applicant reduces the negative effect of a criminal record on the employment decision. See NELP's Research Summary for more information, located in the NELP Fair Chance Toolkit. Q. Who supports fair -chance policies? A. Fair -chance policies are supported by policymakers across the political spectrum, law enforcement, faith leaders, labor unions, civil rights and criminal justice reform groups, and more. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission also endorsed the policy. See NELP's Voices in Support Factsheet, located in the NELP Fair Chance Toolkit. Q. Who has adopted fair -chance policies? A. Currently 19 states and over 100 cities and counties around the country have adopted fair - chance policies. Six states and many local jurisdictions apply their policies to private employers and/or government contractors. Target. Walmart Home Depot, Koch Industries, Starbucks, and Bed, Bath & Beyond have removed the question about convictions from their initial job applications. See NELP's Voices in Support Factsheet, located in the NELP Fair Chance Toolkit. NELP I FAIR CHANCE FACT SHEET & FAQ I SEPTEMBER 2015 2 NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW PROJECT FACT SHEET I SEPTEMBER 2015 "Ban the Box" is a Fair Chance For Workers With Records Removing questions about conviction history from job applications is a simple policy change that eases hiring barriers and creates a fair chance to compete for jobs. Known as "ban the box," this change allows employers to judge applicants on their qualifications first, without the stigma ofa record. The most effective policies don't just remove the "box;" they ensure that conviction information is used fairly. Employers should make individualized assessments instead of blanket exclusions and consider the age of the offense and its relevance to the job Candidates should be given an opportunity to review background -check results. The Problem: Employers Are Not Hiring People With Records There are an estimated 70 million U.S. adults with arrests or convictions that often make it much harder to find work. The "box" on a job application is a barrier to jobs because it has a chilling effect that discourages people from applying. It also artificially narrows the applicant pool of qualified workers when employers toss out applications with the "box" checked, regardless of the applicant's qualifications or relevancy of the conviction to the job. Both the employer and job applicant lose out. Research affirms that a criminal record reduces the likelihood ofa iob callback or offer by nearly 50%. Removing Job Barriers Helps the Economy and is Good for Business The reduced output of goods and services of people with felonies and prison records is estimated at $57 to $65 billion in losses to the nation's economy. Allowing people to work increases their tax contributions boosts sales tax, and saves money by keeping people out of the criminal justice system. Major employers such as Target and Wal-Mart removed the "box" because it made sense. Employment Reduces Re -Offending Employment has been found to be a significant factor in reducing re -offending. One study found that a 1 percent drop in the unemployment rate causes between a 1 to 2 percent decline in some offenses. The Solution: Adopt Fair -Chance Policies A fair -chance policy has a real impact. Research indicates that once an employer has had the chance to examine the qualifications of the applicant, the employer would be more willing to hire the applicant. It's a tried and tested policy. In the United States, 19 states have embraced fair hiring, with seven extending it to private employers. At last count, over 100 cities and counties had adopted the policy. Now is the time for a fair -chance policy for all. NELP I NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW PROJECT 75 MAIDEN LANE, SUITE 601 I NEW YORK, NY 10038 I TEL: 212-285-3025 I WWW.NELP.ORG NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW PROJECT FACT SHEET APRIL 2015 Voices in Support: Leaders In The Community Support Fair Chance Policies Supporting the ability of qualified workers with records to obtain employment, thereby reducing recidivism and lowering criminal justice costs, is a bipartisan issue that has garnered support from a variety of leaders. Below are quotes from leaders who lend their voices in support of fair chance policies. Business Leaders Major Corporations Target and Walmart Ban the Box Nationally. "Walmart removed the criminal history box from its application in 2010, said spokeswoman Dianna Gee. 'The removal does not eliminate the background check or drug test, but it offers those who've been previously incarcerated a chance to get their foot in the door,' she said." Target's Vice President and General Counsel of Employee and Labor Relations, Jim Rowader said of the company's ban the box policy, "We're interested in a safe workplace and shopping environment...." Star Tribune, Target to Ban Criminal History Box on lob Applications (Oct. 26, 2013). Small Business Owners Recognize the Benefit of Hiring People with Records. "1 joined Main Street Alliance of Florida, a network of local small business owners, to help change [the employment barrier problem]. Along with nearly 200 civil and workers' rights groups around the nation, we are calling on President Obama to take executive action to ensure that qualified job -seekers with past arrests or convictions are not automatically shut out of employment opportunities with federal agencies and federal contractors?' The Guardian, Keeping People with Felonies From Earning Doesn't Make us Safer, Only Poorer (March 31, 2015). Federal, State, and Local Policymakers Gov. Nathan Deal (R-GA) Bans the Box Because it's Good for Business. "'Ban the Box'" hiring policies enhance Georgia's reputation as the number one place in which to do business by increasing qualified applicant pools and improving the likelihood that the employer will identify the best candidate for the position; and Georgia is positioned to enhance its reputation as regional leader by becoming the first state in the South to implement a fair hiring policy for applicants with criminal records." State of Georgia Executive Order by the Governor (Feb. 23, 2015). NELP I VOICES IN SUPPORT FACT SHEET I APRIL 2015 Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) Bans the Box to End Discrimination. "[W]e are also going further to reform our criminal justice system by signing legislation that continues with our promise and commitment to give people a second chance.... So, today, we are banning the box and ending employment discrimination. And this is going to make a huge difference for folks who have paid their debts to society, who want to start their lives over again and are going to have an opportunity to do just that in our state." Governor Chris Christie, Signing Legislation to Ban the Box (Aug. 11, 2014) U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) Understands that the "Box" is a Barrier. "I know a guy about my age in Kentucky, who grew marijuana plants in his apartment closet in college. Thirty years later, he still can't vote, can't own a gun, and when he looks for work he must check the box, the box that basically says: 'I'm a convicted felon and I guess I'll always be one.' ... This is a lifelong problem then with employment" U.S. Senator Rand Paul, Senate Judiciary Committee Testimony (Sept 16, 2013). Ban the Box Policy has been a Tremendous Benefit to County. "[T]here has been no negative or adverse consequences since we made this change back in 2007. The feedback that we've received has been overwhelmingly positive. In fact what we hear from members of the community is that they are far more likely to apply for a position with Alameda County based on this change that we made [W]e've been able to expand our pool of qualified applicants as a result of this change in our application process, which has been a tremendous benefit to the County." Jody Pollak, Alameda County Labor Relations Analyst, Testimony before the California Senate Labor Committee (June 26, 2013). Faith Community Ban the Box is Win -Win for Businesses and Job Seekers. "This unanimous decision to 'ban the box' [in Louisville, KY] is a `win -win' for our city... [B]y extending the policy to include vendors who do business with the city, there will be thousands of businesses who will earn the benefits of opening their doors more fully to people who are skilled and motivated to be quality employees." Rev. Larry Sykes, Citizens of Louisville Organized and United Together, Heart of Bluegrass State is Latest to "Ban the Box" with Bipartisan Support (March 17, 2014). Law Enforcement Pittsburgh Attorney General Endorses Ban the Box. U.S. Attorney David Hickton said, "If you give someone a shot after they've made a mistake, they often become your best employee... [People] are coming out, and we have a choice. We can take steps when they come out to give them a chance, or we can cycle them right back into the system." Mr. Hickton urged private employers to follow the lead of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia and "ban the box." Pittsburgh Post -Gazette Pittsburgh's U.S. Attorney Ilrg.e E ployers to Hire People with Records (May 20, 2013). Richmond, California Chief of Police Supports Fair Hiring. "[This policy] will help reduce recidivism and provide members of the Richmond community and other residents of California the opportunity to compete for jobs." Chief Chris Magnus, City of Richmond, Letter in Support of California AB 218 (July 17, 2013). NELP I VOICES IN SUPPORT FACT SHEET I APRIL 2015 2 [new section] 5-3-3A: UNFAIR USE OF CRIMINAL RECORD IN HIRING DECISIONS: otherwise, the A. Definitions: shall have the meanings respectively ation, unless the scribed bedntext lto them in this subsection: lowing words and phrases 1. Applicant: Any person considered or who requests to be considered for employment by an employer. 2. Arrest: The taking of a person into custody when and in the manner authorized by law or military authority due to an accusation or suspicion that the person committed a crime. 3. Conviction: Any adjudication of guilt or sentence arising from a verdict or plea of guilty or no contest or the equivalent in relation to a crime, including a sentence of incarceration, a suspended sentence, a sentence of probation, a sentence of unconditional discharge, or a diversion program. 4. Criminal record: Information regarding a conviction, arrest or labor pending gani a criminal charge. aciation 5. which regularly Any employ pour(4) or company, within the City of Waterloo, including the City of which regularly employs four (4) or more persons Waterloo, its departments, boards, commissions and agencies. Employer also includes job placement and referral agencies and other employment agencies. Neither the United States or any of its political subdivisions, nor the State of Iowa or any of its political subdivisions other than the City of Waterloo, is an employer for purposes of this section. 6. Employment: Any occupation, vocation, job, work for pay or employment, including temporary or seasonal work, contracted work, contingent work and work through the services of a temporary or other employment agency; or any form of vocational or educational training with or ns using any mode of pay. 7. Inquiry: Any direct or indirect conduct intended to gather information, communication, including but not limited to a box or blank that seeks to elicit information about an applicant's criminal record on an employment application form. 8. Interview: Any direct contact by the employer with the applicant, whether in person or by telephone, to discuss the employment being sought or the applicant's qualifications. 9. Legitimate business reason: A reason for which an employer may make an adverse hiring decision based on an applicant's criminal record, including the following: a. rect and substantial bearing on tSituations he fitness ors ability to perform ere the nature of tthe dutieshe aor responsibilities l conduct has a iof the intended employment, employment, place and taking into consideration the following factors: the nature ait fee andthe phe manner in which the employment will be performed,opportunity for the seriousness of the of a offense or conduct, whether the employment presents an opp b similar offense or conduct, the length of time between the conviction or arrest and the application for employment (not including time on probation or parole or the time duringwhich fines or other financial penalties or remedies may be outstanding), the number and types of convictions or pending charges, and any verifiable information provided by the applicant hat is related to the applicant's rehabilitation or good conduct. b. Situationswhere the employmentinvolve unreasonable substantial harm to properttyoo safety of individuals or the public, orto business orbusiness assets, taking into consideration the factors listed in paragraph a of this subsection A.9. c. Positions working with children, developmentally disabled persons and vulnerable adults where the applicant has a conviction record of a crime against children or disabled or vulnerable adults, including but not limited to crimes of rape, sexual abuse, i cecisl st, prostitution, pimping, pandering, assault, domestic violence, kidnapping, n exploitation, neglect, abandonment, and child endangerment. ederal or state law or regulation d. Situations where an employer must comply any applicant's fitness pertaining to background checks and the criminal conduct is relevant to the for the job. 10. Pending criminal charge: An existing accusation that a person has committed a crime, lodged by a prosecutor, law enforcement agency or military authority through an indictment, information, complaint or other formal charge, where the accusation has not yet resulted in a final judgment, acquittal, conviction, plea, dismissal or withdrawal. Name Jim Chapman ORDINANCE MEETING -10/26/15 Address/Business Ban the Box Topic Ban the Box 1115 W. 22nd St. Apt. 501 Cedar Falls, IA, 50613 10/07/2015 Dear City Council: Approximately one in three adults has a criminal record in their history. This creates vast difficulty in regards to finding employment after they are reintegrated back into society. We are passionate about changing this hardship to ensure former criminals have an equal chance at employment. As global citizens, we feel passionate about being progressive and giving people a second chance. We no longer can tolerate treating formal criminals as second class citizens. They have served their time, and further difficulties need to be eliminated from their lives. We strive to be a part of a community that is welcoming and is fair to those with past mistakes. City Council, we urge you to pass the ordinance for "Ban the Box" which will give former criminals a second chance at employment. We believe employment will assist people in staying out of trouble due to the stability and responsibility of a job. We, the undersigned, SUPPORT "Ban the Box" to ensure equality of our local citizens. PRINTED NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE ELIA( E.sbe i f.c1 LN Q . >a Ad 9- 64, �5��s r l' 6 kiseerta p I'.emaar tvP, cP t ?, thL C Mbil — r,M i t LJ l V/6 !> ile/ /S-AJt 47 52 ) 02 33 v (-‘U‘-‘clr\. 1PG Pthi1 IMP � a k-'s(>s\m?.P le I Li t1n'ver Ai-t j i I fip Alf a.800 btift 1-kVdSoc‘9 CFDA, 2M) 4-6(bon RM 3Ss r� r4_ k: o. ). PRINTED NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE f\911\ tk. )(61,yk \NV\ 2_1; S. 0 1 c y 0 tr9 lvd "DeC fv1 eS TA . \all' tak TCLL,V) I i it LI Cak i' lit' t v't irciar Ertl\ 1 1 I A 4) ii:i' A '' 11:4A ,:-s e-.-', t2I'frlry -p.,,f., . r - v.)..t -fa.V‘s il. \A r‘ L((' n i' Cr., inciy-la -6umt-too 20 OrD CiAnripec a\r 61b -I-1-n c-og cecorirt.),01.1i1X-7) r\iar\,,A N\onrot I C 01 Li . 3 (.)-t \r) s-t. Pc.vtnntriee ,/ We cedo,f, rails' 1 1.(10/13 ., -06 CA,Y, +'rth ¼ch&nr "-2) 11)17 :'211.3.)r 4-i{ Orf)er QUI»vt&2(--7Q,A, 11 calks( -_-5cy\e) (;Al) ANN_ Nt.ifie) eAt.A :TA 51x.,A.L., L'iyady C./ hnirlit 31.141171-- S777,01,6," 0/1/- 'du aiabdiI A Cu 13. AkathQIXkU F),\I'k \i`444 fr 0512 (1j(6: r'.71: Pik) 57v. 5-, J ^,-Arn,frt, 6(if3lin cRuSse,11 21 I1 CO itt*,54-. q 1 Ct Aar ca k fO,N )f•s•\q v16-1n11.1°6S\-- \ [new section] 5-3-3A: UNFAIR USE OF CRIMINAL RECORD IN HIRING DECISIONS: A. Definitions: As used in this section, unless the context indicates otherwise the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them in this subsection: 1 Applicant: Any person considered or who requests to be considered for employment by an employer. 2. Arrest: The taking of a person into custody when and in the manner authorized by law or military authority due to an accusation or suspicion that the person committed a crime. 3. Conviction: Any adjudication of guilt or sentence arising from a verdict or plea of guilty or no contest or the equivalent in relation to a crime, including a sentence of incarceration, a suspended sentence, a sentence of probation, a sentence of unconditional discharge, or a diversion program. 4. Criminal record: Information regarding a conviction, arrest or pending criminal charge. 5. Employer: Any person, partnership, company, corporation, labor organization or association which regularly employs four (4) or more persons within the City of Waterloo, including the City of Waterloo, its departments, boards, commissions and agencies. Employer also includes job placement and referral agencies and other employment agencies. Neither the United States or any of its political subdivisions, nor the State of Iowa or any of its political subdivisions, is an employer for purposes of this section. 6. Employment: Any occupation, vocation, job, work for pay or employment, including temporary or seasonal work, contracted work, contingent work and work through the services of a temporary or other employment agency; or any form of vocational or educational training with or without pay. 7. Inquiry: Any direct or indirect conduct intended to gather information, using any mode of communication, including but not limited to a box or blank that seeks to elicit information about an applicant's criminal record on an employment application form. 8. Interview: Any direct contact by the employer with the applicant, whether in person or by telephone, to discuss the employment being sought or the applicant's qualifications. 9. Legitimate business reason: A reason for which an employer may make an adverse hiring decision based on an applicant's criminal record, including the following: a. Situations where the nature of the criminal conduct has a direct and substantial bearing on the fitness or ability to perform the duties or responsibilities of the intended employment, taking into consideration the following factors: the nature of the employment, the place and manner in which the employment will be performed, the nature and seriousness of the offense or conduct, whether the employment presents an opportunity for the commission of a similar offense or conduct, the length of time between the conviction or arrest and the application for employment (not including time on probation or parole or the time during which fines or other financial penalties or remedies may be outstanding), the number and types of convictions or pending charges, and any verifiable information provided by the applicant that is related to the applicant's rehabilitation or good conduct. b. Situations where the granting of employment would involve unreasonable risk of substantial harm to property or to safety of individuals or the public, or to business reputation or business assets, taking into consideration the factors listed in paragraph a of this subsection A.9. c. Positions working with children, developmentally disabled persons and vulnerable adults where the applicant has a conviction record of a crime against children or disabled or vulnerable adults, including but not limited to crimes of rape, sexual abuse, incest, prostitution, pimping, pandering, assault, domestic violence, kidnapping, financial exploitation, neglect, abandonment, and child endangerment. d. Situations where an employer must comply with any federal or state law or regulation pertaining to background checks and the criminal conduct is relevant to the applicant's fitness for the job. 10. Pending criminal charge: An existing accusation that a person has committed a crime, lodged by a prosecutor, law enforcement agency or military authority through an indictment, information, complaint or other formal charge, where the accusation has not yet resulted in a final judgment, acquittal, conviction, plea, dismissal or withdrawal. B. Prohibited Use of Criminal Record Information: In connection with the employment of any person, it shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for an employer to engage in any of the following activity: 1. To make any inquiry regarding, or to require any person to disclose or reveal, any convictions, arrests, or pending criminal charges during the application process, including but not limited to any interview. The application process shall begin when the applicant inquires about the employment being sought and shall end when an employer has extended a conditional offer of employment to the applicant. If the applicant voluntarily discloses any information regarding his or her criminal record at the interview, the employer may discuss the criminal record disclosed by the applicant. 2. To make an adverse hiring decision based solely on the applicant's record of arrests or pending criminal charges. 3. To make an adverse hiring decision based on any criminal records which have been lawfully erased or expunged, which are the subject of an executive pardon, or which were otherwise legally nullified. 4. To make an adverse hiring decision based on an applicant's criminal record without a legitimate business reason. C. Notice of Adverse Hiring Action: 1. Before making an adverse hiring action that is principally based on an applicant's criminal record, the employer shall notify the applicant of the intended adverse hiring action, shall identify the particular records on which the employer is relying, and shall provide a copy of the results of the criminal record inquiry. 2. The employer shall hold the employment position open for a minimum period of three (3) business days after notifying the applicant of the intended adverse hiring action. During such period, the applicant shall have a reasonable opportunity to respond to, explain or correct any information on which the employer is relying. The employer shall review and consider all information and documentation provided by the applicant before making a final decision regarding employment. After three (3) business days, an employer may choose, but is not required, to hold open an employment position until a pending criminal charge is resolved or adjudicated or until questions about an applicant's criminal record are resolved. D. Effect on Other Laws: This section shall not be interpreted or applied as imposing an obligation on the part of an employer to provide accommodations or job modifications in order to facilitate the employment of an applicant. 2