Resource Guide

Ban the Box

U.S. Cities, Counties, and States Adopt Fair Hiring
Policies to Reduce Unfair Barriers to Employment of
People with Criminal Records

UPDATED: JANUARY 2015

About NELP
For more than 40 years, the National Employment Law Project has
worked to restore the promise of economic opportunity for working
families across America. In partnership with grassroots and national
allies, NELP promotes policies to create good jobs, enforce hardwon workplace rights, and help unemployed workers regain their
economic footing.
For more information about this report, please contact NELP Senior
Staff Attorney Michelle Natividad Rodriguez at mrodriguez@nelp.org

More than 100 Cities, Counties, and States Have Adopted Fair-Chance Hiring Policies

East Coast

x

x
City has fair-chance
hiring policy

1.	
2.	
3.	
4.	
5.	
6.	
7.	
8.	
9.	
10.	
11.	
12.	
13.	
14.	
15.	
16.	
17.	
18.	
19.	
20.	
21.	
22.	
23.	
24.	
25.	
26.	
27.	
28.	

Tucson, AZ
California (state law)
Alameda County, CA
Berkeley, CA
Carson, CA
Compton, CA
East Palo Alto, CA
Oakland, CA
Pasadena, CA
Richmond, CA
San Francisco, CA
Santa Clara County, CA
Colorado (state law)
Connecticut (state law)
Bridgeport, CT
Hartford, CT
New Haven, CT
Norwich, CT
Delaware (state law)
New Castle County, DE
Wilmington, DE
Jacksonville, FL
St. Petersburg, FL
Tampa, FL
Atlanta, GA
Fulton County, GA
Hawaii (state law)
Illinois (state law)

29.	
30.	
31.	
32.	
33.	
34.	
35.	
36.	
37.	
38.	
39.	
40.	
41.	
42.	
43.	
44.	
45.	
46.	
47.	
48.	
49.	
50.	
51.	
52.	
53.	
54.	
55.	
56.	

Chicago, IL
Indianapolis, IN
Kansas City, KS
Louisville, KY
New Orleans, LA
Maryland (state law)
Baltimore, MD
Montgomery County, MD
Prince George’s County, MD
Massachusetts (state law)
Boston, MA
Cambridge, MA
Worcester, MA
Ann Arbor, MI
Detroit, MI
East Lansing, MI
Genesee County, MI
Kalamazoo, MI
Muskegon County, MI
Minnesota (state law)
Minneapolis, MN
St. Paul, MN
Columbia, MO
Kansas City, MO
St. Louis, MO
Nebraksa (state law)
New Jersey (state law)
Atlantic City, NJ

County has fair-chance
hiring policy

57.	
58.	
59.	
60.	
61.	
62.	
63.	
64.	
65.	
66.	
67.	
68.	
69.	
70.	
71.	
72.	
73.	
74.	
75.	
76.	
77.	
78.	
79.	
80.	
81.	
82.	
83.	
84.	

Newark, NJ
New Mexico (state law)
Buffalo, NY
New York, NY
Rochester, NY
Syracuse, NY
Ulster County, NY
Yonkers, NY
Carrboro, NC
Charlotte, NC
Cumberland County, NC
Durham City, NC
Durham County, NC
Spring Lake, NC
Akron, OH
Canton, OH
Cincinnati, OH
Cleveland, OH
Cuyahoga County, OH
Dayton, OH
Hamilton County, OH
Massillon, OH
Summit County, OH
Youngstown, OH
Multnomah County, OR
Portland, OR
Allegheny County, PA
Lancaster, PA

x

State has fair-chance
hiring policy

85.	
86.	
87.	
88.	
89.	
90.	
91.	
92.	
93.	
94.	
95.	
96.	
97.	
98.	
99.	
100.	
101.	
102.	
103.	
104.	
105.	
106.	
107.	
108.	
109.	
110.	

Philadelphia, PA
Pittsburgh, PA
Rhode Island (state law)
Providence, RI
Hamilton County, TN
Memphis, TN
Austin, TX
Travis County, TX
Alexandria, VA
Arlington County, VA
Charlottesville, VA
Danville, VA
Fairfax County, VA
Fredericksburg, VA
Newport News, VA
Norfolk, VA
Petersburg, VA
Portsmouth, VA
Richmond, VA
Roanoke, VA
Virginia Beach, VA
Seattle, WA
Spokane, WA
Washington, DC
Dane County, WI
Milwaukee County, WI

Four States Passed
New Laws in 2014
Delaware
Illinois
Nebraska
New Jersey







State
(Year reform was
adopted)

Relevant Statutes

Employers: Private and Public
(State: S, Licensing: L, Cities
and Counties: C)

Job-Related
Screening*

Limits information (Arrests not
leading to convictions:
“Arrests”; Expunged or similar:
“Expunged”; Time limit on
record: “Time limit”)*

Other protections
(Notification of
denial: N; Copy of
record: C*

California
(2010, 2013)

Cal. Lab. Code § 432.9

͞

Public (S, C)

͞

Arrests, Expunged, Time limit

͞

Colorado
(2012)

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-5-101

͞

Public (S, L)

Whether there is “direct
relationship” between
conviction and job

Arrests, Expunged

͞

Consider nature of crime
and relationship to the job

Arrests, Expunged

N, C

Connecticut
(2010)

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-80

Delaware
(2014)

Del. Code tit. 19, § 711(g); Del.
Code tit. 29, § 6909B

Hawaii
(1998)

͞

Public (S, L**)

͞

Public (S, C)

Consider nature of offense
and job
͞

͞

Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 378-2, 378-2.5

Private

Public (S, C)

Conviction bears “rational
relationship” to position

Time limit

͞

Illinois
(2013, 2014)

820 Ill. Comp. Stat.§ 75;
Executive Order 1 (2013)

Private

Public (S)

͞

͞

͞

Maryland
(2013)

Md. Code Ann., State Pers. &
Pens. § 2-203
͞

Public (S)

͞

͞

͞

Massachusetts
(2010)

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, § 4 (9
½); ch. 6, §§ 171A, 172

Private

Public (S, L**, C)

Time limit

N, C

Minnesota
(2009, 2013)

Minn. Stat. § 364

Private

Public (S, L**, C)

Determine if conviction
“directly relates” to
position

͞

Public (S, C)

͞

͞

͞

Private

Public (S, C)

_

Expunged

_

͞

Public (S, L**, C)

Conviction “directly
relates” to employment

Arrests

N

Private

Public (S, C)

͞

Arrests

͞

Nebraska
(2014)
New Jersey
(2014)
New Mexico
(2010)
Rhode Island
(2013)

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-202
AB 1999
N.M. Stat. §§ 28-2-1 to 28-2-6
R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 28-5-6, 28-5-7

͞

Arrests, Expunged

* Some of these components existed prior to the legislation listed here. **Removal of conviction inquiry from the licensing application is not required.

N












































―
―







‐





























































































































































































Employers:
Location
Private
ARIZONA
1. Tucson
2. CALIFORNIA
(State law)
3. Alameda County
4. Berkeley
5. Carson
6. Compton
7. East Palo Alto
8. Oakland
9. Pasadena
10. Richmond
11. San Francisco
12. Santa Clara County
13. COLORADO
(State law)
14. CONNECTICUT (State
law)
15. Bridgeport
16. Hartford
17. New Haven
18. Norwich
19. DELAWARE
(State law)
20. New Castle County
21. Wilmington
FLORIDA
22. Jacksonville
23. St. Petersburg
24. Tampa
GEORGIA
25. Atlanta
26. Fulton County
27. HAWAII (State law)
28. ILLINOIS (State law)
29. Chicago
INDIANA
30. Indianapolis
KANSAS
31. Kansas City
KENTUCKY
32. Louisville
1

Vendors

Public

X
X

X

X1

X
X1

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

Background
checks only
for some
positions

Background
check only after
conditional
offer or finalists
selected

X

X

X
X

X

X

X

N, C, A

X

X

N, C, A

X

A

X

N, C

X
X
X

N, A
N, A
N, C, A

X

X

X
X

X
X
X
X
X

X

X
X
X

X

X
X

X

X
X
X

X
X
X

EEOC
criteria

X

X

X

X
X
X
X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

N, A
N

X
X
X
X
X

X

Notice of denial
(N); Copy of record
(C); Appeal or
complaint process
(A)

X

X
X

X

X

San Francisco Fair Chance Ordinance applies to private employers, not the City and County. The City and County has a separate policy.

N, C
N, C
A
A
A

Employers:
Location
Private
LOUISIANA
33. New Orleans
34. MARYLAND
(State law)
35. Baltimore
36. Montgomery County
37. Prince George’s County

38. MASSACHUSETTS (State
law)
39. Boston
40. Cambridge
41. Worcester
MICHIGAN
42. Ann Arbor
43. Detroit
44. East Lansing
45. Genesee County
46. Kalamazoo
47. Muskegon County
48. MINNESOTA
(State law)
49. Minneapolis
50. St. Paul
MISSOURI
51. Columbia
52. Kansas City
53. St. Louis
54. NEBRASKA
(State law)
55. NEW JERSEY
(State law)
56. Atlantic City
57. Newark
58. NEW MEXICO (State
law)
NEW YORK
59. Buffalo
60. New York
61. Rochester
62. Syracuse
63. Ulster County
64. Yonkers
2 Applies
3

X
X
X
X

Vendors

X
X

X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X

X

X

Public

Background
checks only
for some
positions

X

X

X

X
X
X
X

X

X

X

X

X
X

X
X
X

X
X3
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X

only to public employers.
Policies apply to contractors doing business with the Human Services Department.

EEOC
criteria

Notice of denial
(N); Copy of record
(C); Appeal or
complaint process
(A)
C

X

X
X

X
X

X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

Background
check only after
conditional
offer or finalists
selected

X

A
N, C, A
N, C, A
N, C
N, A
N, C, A
N, C, A

X

X

X
X
X

X2

N2

X
X
X
X

A
X

X

A

X

X
X

X
X
X

N
N, C
N

X

N, C, A

X
X
X

Employers:
Location
Private
NORTH CAROLINA
65. Carrboro
66. Charlotte
67. Cumberland County
68. Durham City
69. Durham County
70. Spring Lake
OHIO
71. Akron
72. Canton
73. Cincinnati
74. Cleveland
75. Cuyahoga County
76. Dayton
77. Hamilton County
78. Massillon
79. Summit County
80. Youngstown
OREGON
81. Multnomah County
82. Portland
PENNSYLVANIA
83. Allegheny County
84. Lancaster
85. Philadelphia
86. Pittsburgh
87. RHODE ISLAND (State
law)
88. Providence
TENNESSEE
89. Hamilton County
90. Memphis
TEXAS
91. Austin
92. Travis County
VIRGINIA
93. Alexandria
94. Arlington County
95. Charlottesville
96. Danville
97. Fairfax County
98. Fredericksburg
99. Newport News
100. Norfolk

Vendors

Public

Background
checks only
for some
positions

Background
check only after
conditional
offer or finalists
selected

X
X

X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X

X

X
X

X
X
X

N, C, A
N

X
X
X

A
N, C, A

X
X

N

X
X

X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X

EEOC
criteria

Notice of denial
(N); Copy of record
(C); Appeal or
complaint process
(A)

X

X

X
X
X
X

X
X
A
N

X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X

X

N, C, A

X

X

X
X
X

X
X
X
X

N

Employers:
Location
101. Petersburg
102. Portsmouth
103. Richmond
104. Roanoke
105. Virginia Beach
WASHINGTON
106. Seattle
107. Spokane
108.
Washington D.C.
WISCONSIN
109.
Dane County
110.
Milwaukee County

Private

Vendors

Public

Background
checks only
for some
positions

X
X
X
X
X
X

X

X

X

X
X
X
X
X

Background
check only after
conditional
offer or finalists
selected

EEOC
criteria

X

X

X

Notice of denial
(N); Copy of record
(C); Appeal or
complaint process
(A)

N, C, A
X

X

A