Ban the Box – RI Future

May 13, 2015

11 RI cities, towns violate ‘Ban the Box’ law

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

At least 11 municipalities in Rhode Island ask job applicants a question on their application forms that is prohibited by law.

The questions vary in wording, but each asks job applicants about their criminal record–a practice that has been illegal in Rhode Island for over a year. As a result, the ACLU of Rhode Island and Direct Action for Rights and Equality (DARE) have sent letters to those municipalities – from Burrillville to Warwick to Narragansett – asking them to promptly remove these questions.

In 2013, the General Assembly amended the state’s Fair Employment Practices Act to provide that, with a few exceptions not relevant here, questions about a person’s past criminal convictions could not be included on employment application forms and could instead only be asked “at the first interview or thereafter.” This “ban the box” law is designed to ensure potential employees are screened based on their qualifications, not their past.

As the letter explains:

The General Assembly enacted this prohibition in recognition of the fact that employment is a pivotal factor in preventing recidivism and that ex-offenders have faced widespread and unfair discrimination in seeking jobs. Well-qualified applicants – even those with long-past criminal records irrelevant to the job for which they were applying – were often excluded from consideration before even having a chance for an interview to demonstrate their qualifications. However, the inquiry on your application form is directly contrary to, and undermines the goal of, the statute to address this inequity.

This month, the ACLU examined the employment application forms of the twenty-nine municipalities that post those forms online after receiving a complaint about one of them. Of the eleven cities and towns that improperly ask criminal record questions, some inquire whether the applicant has ever been convicted of any crime, some limit the inquiry to felonies, and some ask for conviction information for the past five or seven years. And while some of the forms assure applicants that a criminal record does not automatically disqualify them from employment, all of those questions are illegal, and have been since January 1, 2014 when the “ban the box” law took effect.

We’ve asked the municipalities to revise their forms, online and in any other format, within the next two weeks. The ACLU and DARE will consider taking further steps if any cities or towns fail to comply with the statute.

The municipalities that ask about applicants’ criminal record and were sent letters were: Burrillville, Charlestown, Cumberland, Hopkinton, Jamestown, Lincoln, Narragansett, Newport, North Providence, Pawtucket, and Warwick. The ACLU is filing open records requests with the ten towns that did not have their forms posted online and were thus not reviewed.

By discriminating against anyone with a criminal record, these cities and towns are turning away able and qualified applicants. This unhelpful and illegal practice must promptly end–as it should have when it was prohibited last year–so qualified Rhode Islanders have the opportunity to lead productive lives regardless of their past actions.

Fred Ordoñez, executive director of DARE, the organization that led the push for passage of the “ban the box” law, said: “It’s sadly ironic that these municipalities can break a law with little consequence, yet regular people’s criminal record turns into a life sentence of unemployment.”

June 29, 2013July 1, 2013

Open Letter to Gov. Chafee: Sign “Ban the Box”

Dear Governor Chafee,

Yesterday, mere hours before the House passed “Ban the Box” (5507A) by a 62-3 vote, I spoke with a friend who had been told by a temp agency he is “toxic,” and they could never hire him. I said this wasn’t a good case for litigation under federal law. He didn’t care about suing anyone; he was just feeling down about his job search. Unlike most of the 2014 college graduates (with dual degree Honors) my friend has a criminal record from age 16.

Later that day, the EEOC settled with one of the largest trucking companies in America. J.B. Hunt will change its blanket policy that prohibits hiring people with a criminal record, and instead follow the federal agency guidelines, that past crimes should be relevant to the job when used for denial.

I went to law school to receive more interviews, to explain why I would be a good fit for the job. I applied to 30 law schools that made decisions on paper, and do not offer interviews. I got rejected by all of them, yet got into half the schools where I spoke with someone. I’ve since become a positive addition to both Tulane and New Orleans.

I’ve spoken recently with several friends out job hunting. Some are husky like the actor James Gandolfini or David “Big Papi” Ortiz. Some are not as confident with their words. Some are next to homeless. All have criminal records and yet none of this impacts their ability to do solid work. Over 150,000 people have gone through the ACI over the past few decades and those of us who “made it” learned to be flexible to survive. We learn to adjust our sights in the job market, but I urge you, as Governor, ensure that nobody has to stop looking.

Those of us with criminal histories, recent or long past, are your residents, your voters, and your people. We have families. Our children depend on us to set an example and pay the bills. We are looking to erode barriers after we have served our time. When we fail, the pain transcends past one individual, as we are forced to choose from different, less hopeful, options. Yet when we succeed, that too ripples outward. Last year, three of us from the ACI formed Transcending Through Education Foundation. Just this past week we chose our inaugural scholarship winners from a strong pool of applicants. These are people making the most of their situation, who are helping others, and we want to give them some support amidst (typically) a sea of negativity.

Those of us living with criminal convictions know that the only way to make up for what we’ve done, to our families and community, is to persevere and overcome the barriers. Returning to prison because we couldn’t find a job isn’t good for anyone. Fear is what fuels customs of exclusion. Not knowing someone makes it almost understandable. But such customs have been struck down and driven out of America in the past.

When we went door-to-door in 2006 to talk about voting rights, we learned that folks of all varieties believe we are all still residents, and everyone deserved a second chance. When we started awareness around Ban the Box, we’ve seen the growth of similar support. These are all pieces of a larger fabric to mend, to truly weave us into We The People. A people all in it together.

I raised this issue during your 2010 campaign and you responded as genuinely concerned and supportive. Governor Chafee, please stay that course and sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Bruce Reilly

Bruce Reilly is a former organizer with Direct Action for Rights & Equality, current treasurer of Transcending Through Education Foundation, and a summer Ella Baker fellow for the Center for Constitutional Rights. He is a third year law student at Tulane University, and continues to volunteer as a member of FICPM, VOTE, and National Lawyers Guild. He will always be a member of DARE.

May 15, 2013May 16, 2013

Ban the Box activists march to State House today

Surely there are some convicted criminals who may not be ready to rejoin the work-a-day world. But just as surely there are many who are. The Ban the Box bill would make it harder for potential employers to confuse the two by doing away with generic questions about criminal records on job applications.

Watch this video, or read this prior RI Future post, to learn more:

If you support this legislation, join Jobs with Justice and Direct Action for Rights and Equality and others today at 3 p.m. at Burnside Park for a march to the State House.

From a Jobs with Justice email:

Have you seen the question on most job applications have the that asks: “Have you ever been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor?” Have you, or has anyone you know, ever had to check that box to say “yes, I have”? If so, you probably know that most of the time, checking that box means your application will likely wind up in the trash–and when it does, you’re likely to remain unemployed, unable to provide for yourself, your family, or your community and more likely to return to prison. When our society creates a permanent second class of people desperately looking for a way to survive, we all suffer.

Please join us tomorrow at a

MARCH & RALLY for BAN THE BOX

WEDNESDAY, MAY 15^th @ 3PM

Meet at Burnside Park Downtown Providence – March to the RI Statehouse

Pass the word!

The rally will begin at Burnside Park, Downtown Providence at 3PM and from there we will arch up to the RI Statehouse (Smith Street Side). Please come out! Bring your family and friends. There will be chanting and beautiful signs. We need to let our legislators know that 2013 is the year to pass Ban the Box.

March 24, 2013March 27, 2013

Move RI Beyond the Box: Stop Job Discrimination

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Ban the Box legislation was heard this week at the State House. (Photo by Dave Fisher)

This past week, the House Labor committee heard from “Ban the Box” supporters, including a short film to illustrate the challenge of finding employment, and a new life, with a criminal past.

The film (available here) makes the case for House Bill H5507, known as “Ban the Box.” This piece of legislation removes that question, “Have you ever been convicted of a crime?” from job applications and provides key protections against employment discrimination for people with records. The bill is sponsored by House Representatives Slater, Chippendale, Williams, Almeida, and Diaz.

The film features employers and job applicants who would be directly affected by the legislation. Additional interviewees include Michael Evora of the Rhode Island Human Rights Commission; AT Wall, Director of the Rhode Island Department of Corrections; Misty Wilson, Organizer at the community organization Direct Action for Rights and Equality (DARE) as well as some of the bill’s sponsors. In the film, AT Wall calls employment opportunity “the key pillar” to success re-entry and Michael Evora says that Ban the Box is “one of the most important civil rights issues of our time.”

Opponents are uninformed, or hoping you are.

The Attorney General has been less-than-accurate in his depiction of the law and liability, by saying that it would be “unlawful,” under the legislation, for an employer to deny an applicant a job “based on his or her criminal record… [unless] there is a direct relationship between one or more of the previous criminal offenses and employment sought.”

“This act would open every employer in the State, both public and private, to civil liability in the hiring process that may actually have a chilling effect on new employment opportunities.”

There are three other reasons an applicant can be denied:

1. A state or federal law prohibition (such as many school, health care, law enforcement, or CEO positions);

2. Applicant is not bondable;

3. “unreasonable risk to property, or to the safety or welfare of specific individuals, employees, or the general public.”

It is impossible to anticipate any specific judicial interpretation of these reasons, as facts of every case will vary. However, one can safely assume that no RI governor has appointed any “anti-business” and “pro-criminally convicted people” to the bench. If so, I missed it. The fear mongering, of scaring businesses to steer clear, is (a) missing the realities of a statewide economy, and (b) overlooking the fact that Connecticut and Massachusetts have similar laws. This bill is also consistent with EEOC policy on the subject.

Many have overlooked that this law would only apply in scenarios where an applicant has already been offered a job, and then the employer wishes to revoke it based on a criminal record. Clearly the applicant has shown some job-worthiness. Considering most applicants will be people who never went to prison, or recently served small time for a small crime, it would be difficult for someone to “go straight” if years need to tick by… without crime and without a job.

Some have hypothesized that creating a few rules in the employment process violates the freedom of a business or organization to operate freely. Yet this is a right that nobody alive ever enjoyed, as the tax code and regulatory agencies have long subjected businesses and organizations to codes and laws. They have hypothesized that attorneys will file “frivolous” lawsuits, although this would open up such attorneys to sanctions under Rule 11 of the state and federal court rules. Considering all the other avenues for “frivolous” lawsuits, there is no indication that this will now create a new windfall. If one were to file, they might use the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, one of the few statutes that provide for attorneys fees. The FCRA is currently in effect and there is no allegation of it being used frivolously.

A community must sink or swim together.

The love or hatred in one’s own heart is part of what makes us all human. Most of our beliefs are developed over time, and impacted by our families, schools, neighborhood gossip, television, social media, government policy and more. Policymakers, unlike private citizens, do not have the luxury of saying “I don’t care,” about a particular dilemma; nor are they allowed to have divisive beliefs. Not, at least, if they are trying to develop and build the health of their entire districts. Public policies such as drug prohibition, sending our youth off to war, or the refusal to provide a comprehensive mental health plan, have both intended and unforeseen consequences. Among them is narrowing of employment opportunities after labeling people with a criminal record.

Opponents to the legislation tend to characterize the systematic discrimination and exclusion of people from the job market as fair and responsible. The lifetime of punishments are placed on the shoulders of someone who broke the law, with little (if any) consideration to how long ago and how petty the offense(s) may have been. It is an understandable position to take when placed in the context of America’s long struggle with discrimination. Finally, perhaps, discrimination that everyone can agree upon? Yet just like the ostracism of Black people, women, Latino, gay, and transgender people…most Americans ultimately recognize everyone’s basic human dignity and right to a live in an inclusive society.

Over 100,000 ACI ID numbers in two decades.

When times get tough, such as during a serious lack of available jobs, it is tempting to fragment off and find a “Them” for an “Us” to rise up above. This will not work. We are too intertwined, too interdependent. In the past 20 years, the Adult Correctional Institutions have assigned over 100,000 identification numbers, most of which went to Rhode Island residents. Every one of them is more than a number. And as an employer in the film points out, many will work harder than others because they have something to prove.

This film is part of a larger project documenting the effect of criminal records on employment and re-entry. The film is produced by a team of Providence-based artist and film-makers, Rachel Levenson, Emmett Fitzgerald, Adrian Randall, Jonah David, Victoria Ruiz and Casey Coleman. Numerous community members and organizers have contributed to the writing and production of the film.

Media requests can be made to Rachel Levenson at rachelannalevenson@gmail.com

March 29, 2012March 29, 2012

Why RI Should ‘Ban the Box’ on Job Applications

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Every week in Rhode Island thousands of people are ushered through the court system, and every year nearly 20,000 will be released from prison. There are 30,000 people currently on probation, as we have one of the highest rates of government supervision in the nation. Over 100,000 Rhode Islanders have some manner of conviction on their records. The effects of those convictions can vary greatly.

A culture of criminal background checks has cast a cloud of discrimination upon many people and their families. HB 7760 and 7864 [concerning pre-interview criminal background checks] accept the fact that we live within one community- and we need to look carefully at policies that can go awry of their original intent regarding the safety of all.

I am in some ways typical of a person with a criminal record, particularly as we can only be evaluated on an individual basis. My past is terrible. The things I did two decades ago are despicable, and some have argued that I should continue to be punished and a life of homelessness or unemployment is appropriate. However, whether I lived out such an existence in prison or the community, I would become a burden on the state. On the one hand, my crimes are far more severe than most of the convicted; yet on the other hand, I bring more capacity to the table than most of the convicted.

In 2005 I was released from prison after 11 years, 8 months and restricted by an electronic monitoring ankle bracelet for one year. Prior to my release (as a pre-condition of getting parole), I was only able to find one job, and it took me two hours to get to work. After a few months, and with school starting soon, I sought a job closer to home in Woonsocket, at a Sears department store warehouse. I did not check the “box” asking if I had been “convicted of a felony in the past seven years.”

My interview at Sears went well. I submitted to a drug test, and upon the second interview I mentioned he would need to speak with my parole officer before taking the job. When we got into my very distant past, it was clear I was not getting the job despite my willingness to work hard for under $8 per hour. Others like me generally do not get that far, as many have been convicted in the past seven years. He may have been more comfortable if my history were less severe, yet if that lighter crime were more recent, I probably would not have made the interview.

Last summer I transferred my probation to New Orleans and looked for an apartment. I introduced myself as a Tulane Law Student. After going through the process, I asked if they discriminated against anyone. The agent assured me they did not, and requested my non-refundable $50 application fee. I asked about “people with convictions.” She did not know; they use a third party to do their background checks, but she was helpful enough to find their policy: Anyone with a felony conviction within the past seven years is barred from living in River Garden, one of the largest housing complexes in New Orleans. And anyone who ever had a crime of violence or property damage cannot live there. This is a common policy.

Last year we introduced the “Ban the Box” bill to This Committee. We have gained the support of many, as I expect you will continue to see in the legislative process. Some of you likely recall who came out in opposition: a lobbyist who represents background check companies. They could not provide any evidence of people with criminal records creating less effective workplaces, yet evidence of these policies decimating communities is overwhelming. They are likely familiar that their companies frequently violate the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), which has standards for checking people’s information. Background checks have a consistent error rate, evidenced by the approximately 100,000 voters barred from the polls in Florida in 2000 because their names were similar to others who were barred by felony convictions.

Background check companies are blunt data miners who rarely recognize corrections or expungements, and certainly cannot assess the actual job applicant- whether 20 days or 20 years after conviction. This Legislature has held many hearings on expunging criminal records, even reforms proposed by the Attorney General. Those expungements are useless where background check companies do not update material. Their goal, understandably, is profit rather than safety.

When NY Governor Cuomo was Attorney General, he filed a series of discrimination suits against companies based on FCRA, Title VII, and New York anti-discrimination laws. He elicited millions of dollars in settlements and voluntary reforms in their hiring policies. Appropriate law in Rhode Island could provide guidance and protection for our own companies, allowing them to avoid the type of hiring policies that the EEOC has condemned. The EEOC is stepping up its enforcement, and recently negotiated a $3.1 million settlement with Pepsi, including a change to their hiring practice, as they had conducted blanket denials based on criminal records.

My prospects of returning to Rhode Island and raising my daughter are largely tied to what this legislature does in the coming years. Nearly a third of public school students have a parent who is under government supervision like myself; would I be barred from volunteering? Barred from school property? Will I be allowed to work based on my skills and efforts? Will I be allowed to rent or buy a home anywhere I like? This nation has been on a dangerous slope over recent decades, and if we do not reverse course we will have a caste society that forces me to create a different economy, a different school system, and a different community. This is not what I want, and I am confident that it is not what the people of Rhode Island want. Ultimately, we will all sink or swim together.

These comments were submitted to the House Labor Committee and entered into the record at its hearing on Wednesday on a bill that would make concerning pre-interview criminal background checks, or as it has been called “Ban the Box” because it would make it illegal to have a box on a job application asking if one has been convicted of a felony.

January 10, 2012January 10, 2012

Dr. King’s Legacy: RIPTA Called Out by Community to Re-hire Fired Workers

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Next Thursday, on January 19th, at 6:30pm, members of the RIPTA board will be at Direct Actions for Rights & Equality (DARE), answering calls to reinstate two employees who were unjustly fired last month. The fundamental question is: are people with criminal histories are sentenced to a life of unemployment? Even the New York Times has noted that nearly a third of Americans are arrested by the age of 23, but more importantly, the EEOC has long declared that a blanket policy of discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Can RIPTA fire employees after the media highlights their criminal records? They may, but it may come with a cost. The Rhode Island Public Transit Authority (RIPTA) allowed three people into their training program who had records, and all of the felonies were over five years old. Two passed the training and made it to be drivers. Not an incident was reported until the media decided to do a fear tactic story, about who was driving folks around.

Within four days of the story, RIPTA Chairman of the Board, Thom Deller (who has his own controversies over a long and peculiar government career) announced that the two drivers are not on the road. The bus drivers union, meanwhile, held a “No-Confidence” vote of the RIPTA CEO Charles Odimgbe. Union President John Harrington says “We believe in second chances, but there was a lack of good judgment hiring those individuals…” And therein lies the rub: when will it be good judgment?

Over 10% of Providence residents, for example, are actively on probation or parole. Far more than 25% of the city has a criminal record. Over 50% of Black men in Providence have criminal records. These records range from petty to serious, recent to distant, with each subsequent charge being enhanced both in name and punishment. Ultimately, petty crimes for those with extensive histories result in major prison sentences. In general: those who have no felonies over the past five years have been faring well. At what point are they employable?

It is poor public safety policy to take a cross-section of any community and say you are not allowed to work. It is a sign of poor leadership if a community stands by as a bulk of the workforce is labeled “persona non grata,” and there is no pathway back into society. What is the message the legislators and the RIPTA Board are sending? The one I hear is “We don’t care where you look for work, just don’t look for work around here.” This translates into, we don’t care how you feed and house yourself, just go away. Yet there is no place else to go… except prison.

What is the message being heard by millions of people across the country who have criminal convictions? By tens of thousands of Rhode Islanders not lucky enough to work for an aunt or uncle? That message is clear: Don’t bother looking for work. Don’t bother getting an education. Don’t bother obeying the rules. Personally, I do not like that message one bit, yet I have heard it loudly for quite some time. It means more people quitting after ten rejections in their job search, when perhaps the eleventh application would have paid off. It means more drug sales. More breaking into businesses late at night looking for a means to eat and sleep. It means that people I care about are likely to end up on either end of a gun. It means someone I know may carjack someone else I know, with one mother in a visiting room and the other at a funeral.

It is unfortunate to read statements by the bus drivers’ union that fail to support the workers. Dr. Martin Luther King’s birthday is January 15th. A national holiday for a man once vilified by the American government. MLK famously led a bus boycott that resulted in a full integration of the drivers, and a change in the “Back of the Bus” policy. With RIPTA already poised for further cuts, would they like a boycott by the people with criminal records and their family members? Are such customers only good enough to buy a ride, but not good enough to work there? A boycott of any scale and sustainability would possibly eliminate RIPTA altogether, and might be easy to do with one of the highest fares in the country.

From the days of “No Irish Need Apply” to Jim Crow segregation, courts and lawmakers have ultimately responded to a public that demands a right to regulate its own communities. Title VII is just one avenue to attack systemic discrimination that links racial disparity with the effects of our current criminal justice system. The people are on the rise in this regard. Whether it is the recent victory in Detroit to “Ban the Box” on job applications, or Gov. Cuomo’s ability to extract millions from companies who discriminate based on criminal records, it is becoming more expensive to hold the Puritan line of a chosen people ruling over the outcasts.

A coalition of groups, led by DARE and RI Community of Addiction and Recovery Efforts (RICARES), will be pursuing legislation this year that has received growing support to Ban the Box, including Providence Mayor Angel Taveras, House Judiciary Chair Edie Ajello, House Labor Chair Anastasia Williams, Minority Leader Brian Newberry, and Republican Rep. Mike Chippendale. Representative Scott Slater has been the primary sponsor of a bipartisan bill to address this very issue. Ironically, the legislation is designed to give people a chance in the application process, to prove themselves as the two RIPTA employees did. Only courage and wisdom of administrators can keep people employed once a negative portrayal comes out in the media.

Public transportation is primarily used by the poor and people of color; people who are highly policed and often know quite a few with a blemish on their record. It is a shame to see elected and appointed leaders publicly state their assumptions that having a criminal record equates to being a bad person, a bad worker, or a danger to strangers. To have no judgment process, no filter, is to say that all people without criminal records are equal. They are all of the same intelligence, same work ethic, same moral standard, and should be awarded or punished all the same. Those who paint broad strokes are clearly ignorant, because they certainly do not have enough experience with the huge percentage of America who have been arrested and processed through our criminal justice system. Ignorance may get people elected, but it shouldn’t keep them in power.