Maryland bans the box

Maryland Bans the Box for private employers

NOTE: This article was initially posted in May 2013 and has been updated with new and current information.

As you may know, Ban the Box refers to removing the criminal convictions question from employment applications. Preferring that any discussion of criminal histories be done further along in the application process and in person. Hoping to make the process fairer for applicants.

In October of 2013, Maryland’s first Ban the Box law took effect. The law removed the criminal conviction question from State employment applications. At that time, there were only seven states with similar legislation.  Since then the Ban the Box movement has swept the nation with cities, counties, and states enacting laws. According to the National Employment Law Project, as of July 2019, there were thirty-five states and one hundred and fifty cities and counties that have Ban the Box laws. Thirteen states have laws that prohibit private employers from asking about criminal history on the application. As of January 1, 2020, Maryland became the fourteenth.

Maryland Private Employer law takes effect January 2020

The Maryland legislature passed a private employer Ban the Box law in 2019 only to have the law vetoed by the Governor. In one of the first acts of the 2020 legislature, the Maryland General Assembly voted to override the veto.

The new law states that, before the first in person interview, employers may not ask an applicant to disclose details about whether or not a criminal record exists. This law only applies to those employers with fifteen or more employees too include seasonal, temporary, and contractual employees.

So far only a few major corporations, such as Target and Walmart, have publically “Banned the box”.

Details of the laws procession through the legislative process can be found at http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Legislation/Details/hb0994/?ys=2019rs

CONVICTED? NEVER CONVICTED.

Note: This article was originally posted in 2014. It has been updated with new information.

Owning a business investigation company we often had clients who would come to us to perform self-background checks. They had had an indiscretion long ago and wondered if it would appear during an employment background check. Or they had records expunged and wanted to make sure that searches would not reveal the records. Every now and then we would find records that the client swore had been expunged.

The search techniques used and the diligence of the background check company can often uncover records thought to be vaporized by the delete key. As records become more digitized it is increasingly more difficult to erase yourself from the digital world. Just like the picture from a sophomore year party that a friend posted on your favorite social media page, once it’s out there-it’s out there. Removing it can be difficult and time-consuming.

EXPUNGED?

Similar to those unwanted pictures, records of your past, even expunged records, can be found in the digital world. The legal term “expunged” has different definitions in different States. Some allow for the records to be sealed and treat the case as it never happened. Some change the conviction to “dismissed” but the other details of the case are the same. In Maryland, it means to remove from public inspection. Although records are expunged, they are filed somewhere.  

Once you receive an order to have your record expunged and it is served, the judicial system possessing the record will remove it from its online court access. Anyone searching your name would not see the record. Contrary to what the fast working TV detectives would have us believe, there is not one government sourced database of criminal records. Records of arrests and adjudications are kept at the local courthouses and county jurisdictions. The closest to any semblance of a national database is the FBI’s fingerprint database, to which only law enforcement has access. See “National” record checks  Third-party vendors must rely on court reported data offered by State and local governments. 

As with your personal information and shopping habits, court data is downloaded, bought, and sold every day. Vendors collect the data from several sources. As the data is shared and stored and stored again it ends up in narrower access points allowing for the production of a single report.  If the vendor then resells that report, the record moves to another database. You get the idea. Just like the unwanted picture, although expunged from the government files, your record is sitting in who knows how many vendors databases waiting to be accessed.  

REMOVING THE RECORD 

The criminal record you had expunged was downloaded, bought, shared, compiled, stored, all the digital speak long before the record was expunged. The best, and least expensive, way to rid the record from existence is to deal with the source vendor directly. Most companies that deal with personal information are forthright about the data that they dispense and pride themselves on the accuracy, which means they are more than willing to help. Sending them a copy of the expungement order along with a request to have the record removed usually will suffice. The problem is finding all the places where the record is stored. This can be a tedious and long process for the individual. There are companies that will chase the record and do the work for you, but of course, fees are involved.

DISCLOSURE

Cities and states throughout the U.S. have enacted laws banning the criminal history question from employment applications. See Ban the Box 

In October 2018, a Massachusetts criminal justice reform bill went into effect that included further Ban the Box regulation. The new regulations include disclosure of misdemeanor convictions for three years (Previously was five). Also, employers cannot inquire about expunged records. Applicants that have had records expunged may legally answer “no record”.

The bottom line is, job seekers cannot be 100% sure that an expunged record will not turn up in a background search. If unsure, be honest about the existence of a record with the requester. Provide copies of the expungement order when the record is requested. However, know your rights within your state and handle the criminal records question per the law. You may not be required to answer.

Refer to the blog archive for more articles about criminal records in Employment

What’s in your wallet?

The salary question

The movement to remove the criminal history question from employment applications has been steadily gaining popularity over the last several years. Ban the Box (referring to the checkbox asking if an applicant has ever been convicted of a crime) laws have been enacted by cities, counties, and states. Most affect only government applications but a few apply to the private sector. They are currently 26 states and 150 cities and counties. Maryland is one of those states and the laws applies to state government applications only. While it is not against federal employment laws (past bills in Congress have failed) the EEOC strongly encourages employers not to base hiring decisions based on the applicant’s criminal history.

Another interview question under scrutiny is the salary question-“What is your current and/or most recent salary?” Proponents feel that asking the question will help correct salary disparities by not basing offers on past pay. Arguing that pay should be offered for the position, based on market values, not the person. Employers feel that the new laws are more government intrusion that affects hiring and hurts their overall business.

The attention to this question comes from the equal pay for women campaign, which is gaining popularity on political platforms. Women earn roughly 80 cents per dollar compared to men based on information form the U.S. Census bureau. This pay disparity tends to follow a woman throughout her career when new salary offers are based on current or past history.

Pay equity laws

As with Ban the Box, once the wave starts rolling it does not take long for cities and states to follow suit. The National Conference of State Legislatures lists 43 states with equal pay laws that prohibit discriminating between the sexes. However, Massachusetts was the first to enact a law that specifically prohibits paying a woman less than a man.

In August 2016, the Governor of Massachusetts signed into law the Pay Equity Act, which will take effect July 1, 2018. Under this law it will be illegal for employers: to pay men and women differently for comparable work, screen applicants based on past salaries, contact the applicant’s former company reference salary, and restricting employees from discussing their salaries.

After Massachusetts big cities quickly passed laws. Philadelphia became the first to enact such a law, which was to take effect in January 2017, but is delaying implementation awaiting a federal ruling on a petition to block the law. In April 2017, New York City barred employers from inquiring about salary information.

This issue is gaining attention at the federal level as well. In September of 2016 the Pay Equity for All Act of 2016 was introduced to the United States House of Representatives and is still in committee. The original proposal would make it illegal to screen prospective employees based on their previous wages or salary histories; ask for previous wages or salary; or fire or retaliate against any current or prospective employee because the employee opposed disclosing salary information.

Maryland’s equal pay act took effect October 1, 2016 when The Equal Pay for Equal Work Act of 2016 was enacted. The law applies to employers of any size and extends protections to gender identity as well as sex and bars employers from prohibiting employees from discussing or disclosing wages or those of another employee. The full law can be found at Maryland Equal Pay for Equal Work 

  

See our blog archive for more Ban the box and hiring discrimination posts:

Ban the Box update August 2016

Health History Discrimination May 2016

Students say ban the Box April 2016

Gauging one’s appearance May 2014

Have you ever been convicted of a crime? February 2014

Maryland Bans the Box May 2013

Should the box be banned? February 2013

Health history discrimination

What an employer asks on employment applications regarding criminal history and how it is used, has long been scrutinized by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). In recent years when an employer asks about criminal history has been at issue (Should the box be banned, February 4, 2013). Employers are also getting caught on health history questions, although the EEOC has been monitoring that form of discrimination for over twenty years.

EEOC and ADA

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, made it illegal to discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The EEOC was created in 1965 to enforce the Civil Rights Act but had to authority. In 1972, Congress gave the EEOC litigation enforcement authority. The American with Disabilities Act was passed in 1990 and the EEOC was given enforcement authority over Title I of the Act, which includes the employment discrimination provisions. The ADA places restrictions on employers regarding asking job applicants to answer medical questions.

EEOC v. Grisham Farm Products, Inc.

In a recent case the EEOC, on March 22, 2016, filed suit in the United States District Court against Grisham Farm Products, Inc. alleging that its employment application violated the ADA. (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Grisham Farm Products, Inc. 16-cv-03105)

In the case, an applicant applied for a warehouse position at Grisham. The Grisham job application contained forty-three “yes or no” health related questions. The questions were similar to what would be seen on an initial doctor visit. The Grisham application inquired whether in the past ten years the applicant has had allergies, arthritis, bladder infections, eating disorders, gallstones, sexually transmitted diseases, etc. The application also inquired about prior hospitalizations, HIV infection, treatment for alcoholism, and whether the applicant consulted a doctor, chiropractor, therapist, or other health care provider in the past two years.

The application’s Health History section stated in large letters, “All questions must be answered before we can process your application”. The applicant did not answer all of the questions and telephoned Grisham Farm. A company representative said that if the health history section was not fully completed, it would not be accepted.

The EEOC claims that the applicant believed he did not have to reveal his medical history to any potential employer. The case is still in litigation.

Review your hiring process

Employers should be frequently reviewing their hiring process. They also need to follow EEOC decisions as these decisions occur frequently and affect the hiring process. As with questions regarding criminal history, there are parameters as to what health questions can be asked and when they can be asked. The EEOC is clear that pre-employment health inquiries can be made only after a conditional offer has been made, if the inquiries are made to all applicants for that job category, and the inquiries are job related and consistent with a business necessity.



May 9, 2016-The EEOC released it's latest guidance on leave as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. Employer-Provided Leave and the Americans with Disabilities Act

Verified to work within the U.S.

Some relate identity theft with the actual assumption of your name and personal data. Living a carefree life under your name, sticking you with all of the debt. But there are several ways your identity or even parts of it can be used fraudulently.

Having the pleasure of someone else file your taxes takes out all of the stress. When it’s a trusted professional it gives you peace of mind. When it’s a complete stranger who also accepts your refund on your behalf, it’s frustrating to say the least. Not long ago we were among the hundreds of thousands of victims of tax refund fraud. You file your taxes electronically and it gets rejected because someone else has already filed. You don’t know how your data was compromised or why the IRS accepted such an oversimplified return that is out of character with years of your own filings, but it happened. The IRS doesn’t figure out who is the real you, you have to prove it.

You go through the IRS process of identifying yourself and after a few months you are good to file again, except now you have to use a special PIN. Due to your social security number (SSN) being compromised, you can no longer use it to file.

Job search

Probably everyone reading this has been the victim of some level of identity theft. Whether it is credit card skimming or tax refund fraud, with very little information someone can take your identity. Depending on the level, the fixes can be arduous. Prevention is easier. File your taxes early. Monitor your credit scores and your accounts. You can increase the security on credit card accounts, opting for notifications when someone accesses your account. Be mindful of how and when you use your credit card, but these are financial issues. If your SSN has been compromised, you may also be applying for jobs that you are not aware. 

A lot of systems are still set up to identify you through your SSN, one of those being employment. Not only can your, now compromised, SSN be used to get tax refunds and buy merchandise, it can also be used by someone to apply for a job. If you’re not collecting social security you may not know your identity has been stolen is this manner. This type of SSN fraud is more prevalent with illegal aliens who use their own name but a stolen SSN. It is estimated by several sources that over seventy-five percent of illegal aliens use fraudulent SSNs to obtain employment.

EVerify

EVerify is an Internet based system that compares an employee’s personal data with data from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration records to confirm employment eligibility. Basically, is the employee legally within the U.S. and is the information provided not being used fraudulently. EVerify is administered by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigrations Services (USCIS). USCIS have created, within the EVerify system, a new service called myEVerify. myEVerify allows the user to monitor the use of their social security number within the EVerify system. EVerify is used by employers…myEVerify is used by workers.

Not having afforded myself this level of SSN protection, I decided to take it for a spin. The process took about five minutes and wasn’t that painful. In addition to the normal web account setup process, you must also go through a series of identification questions. An added level of identification verification is an “identification quiz” that further confirms your identity. One can tell from the questions asked that the personal identifiers provided in the account setup process are checked against financial and public databases to generate the questions. This is all done to ensure that the person setting up the account is, in fact, you. A side benefit of establishing the account is verification that you are approved to work within the U.S. At least, you should get this verification. Once your account is created you can perform self-checks to see if your SSN has been used for employment, check the status of any EVerify cases you may have, and lock your SSN.

Locking your SSN

Locking your SSN basically freezes your SSN so that someone else cannot use it for employment purposes.  If you wish to lock your SSN, login into your account and click on Self Lock. You will go through a level of identification and security questions before the process is complete. Again, all to ensure that you are the one performing the action.

Locking your SSN also locks you out. If you will be seeking employment after you lock your SSN you will have to login to your account and unlock the SSN. As with the locking process, unlocking will require you to go through a series of security features. Each step of the above processes seemed to be followed by confirmation and notification emails.

Criminals will make use of what they are offered. Be it a credit card number, your name and address, your birthday, or all of your personal data. Locking your SSN from being used in the EVerify system is yet another action you can take to attempt to protect yourself from identity theft.

The myEVerify site can be found through this link.

https://www.uscis.gov/mye-verify

Checkout our blog archive for other posts relating to identity theft:

Taking your identity on vacation-June 2013

There’s been a breach-February 2015
Keys to the vault-August 2015

Enforcing company policy

The National Labor Relations Board ruled in favor of an employee fired because of a rant on Facebook against the employer. Perhaps more significantly, the company cited violation of its obscenity policies, which the NLRB disregarded because the policy was found to have been unenforced in past instances. Underscoring the importance to enforce policies regularly and fairly. Not just when it is convenient for management. 

The case

By a two-to-one vote, a three-member panel of the National Labor Relations Board upheld an administrative law judge’s findings that an employer unlawfully discharged an employee because of social media comments, including strong obscenities that were personally critical of a company manager. (Pier Sixty, LLC and Hernan Perez, et al, NLRB Cases No 02-CA-068612 and 02-CA-070797, March 31, 2015.) 

The company’s employees expressed interest in union representation, based in part because of concerns that management treated them “disrespectfully and in an undignified manner.” Those efforts resulted in a successful organizing campaign, after which the Union was certified as the exclusive collective bargaining representatives. Two days before that election a long-term employee was working as a server at an event. During the cocktail service a company manager allegedly approached and in a loud voice and in front of guests addressed the employee and two other employees, using an unnecessarily harsh tone, and waiving his arms. Upset with the manager’s treatment, the employee took a break and, outside of the banquet facility, posted from his phone a message to his personal Facebook page. The message referred to the manger as a “NASTY M***** F***er” and a “LOSER!!!!,” stated “f*** his mother and his entire f***ing family,” and ended with “Vote YES for the UNION!!!!!!!” After being made aware of that posting, the company fired the employee for violation of its obscenity policy. 

Decision

The panel determined the firing violated the NLRA because the Facebook post was deemed to be protected concerted activity. Although the company argued that the employee had violated company policy regarding obscene language, it was determined that since 2005, the company had issued only five written warnings to employees who had used obscene language, and had discharged no one on that basis. Further, it was found that the employee's use of obscene language in his posting was not “qualitatively different from profanity regularly tolerated by the company.” 

The NLRB first ruled on “Facebook firings” in October 2012. The NLRB has ruled that postings on social media regarding the way employees are treated or working conditions are protected concerted activities under the National Labor Relations Act. The company’s defense of policy violation in the aforementioned case did not stand up because the policy itself was overlooked.

Employee handbooks and rules are necessary for a safe and favorable workplace. However, when violations of policies are overlooked the workplace can become a dangerous and/or hostile environment. Additionally, employee morale tends to be low because of managerial indifference or inequitable enforcement of violations. When policies are enforced as a “CYA” measure, reviewing entities rarely rule for the company.

www.mazzellainvestigations.com/informationresources.html