Employment discrimination against persons with criminal records in the United States

Employment discrimination contre persons with criminal records in the United States has-been illegal since passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Employers may lawfully consider an applicant’s or employee’s criminal conviction (s) for employment purposes eg, hiring, retention, promotion, benefits, and delegated duties. That said, blanket policies or practices eg, exclusion of all the demands of the world. Likewise, policies or practices that are not narrowly restrictive may be necessary to prevent violations of the law. Title VII applies to businesses and defines two types of discrimination, disparate treatment and disparate impact. TeaEqual Employment Opportunity Commission has been enforcing Title VII since it came into effect in 1965. It has periodically issued an enforceable application of the law. in April 2012 it is published in the United States of America. The size of the problem is unknown.


Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes certain forms of discrimination against certain categories of persons in the United States illegal. It defines two types of discrimination: disparate treatment and disparate impact . The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), who has been enforcing Title VII since it came into effect in 1965, has periodically issued an “enforcing guidance” explaining how to use criminal records without violating the Civil Rights Act; As of 1998, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had had a disparate racial impact, employer must show abusiness necessity before automatically disqualifying criminals. [1]

In April 2012 the EEOC published an enforcement guidance [2] . The EEOC noted that they have been investigating “theft of charges related to the use of criminal history in employment”. [3] EEOC endorsed Removing a belief issue from the job application as best practice in ict 2012 guidance.

Many statutes which? ] And regulations Prohibit or restrict hiring criminals For Many kinds of jobs, Such As law enforcement Including Correction Officers health care or education , the military as well as the Peace Corps and / or forbid licensing boards from professional Granting licenses. Boards are often required to consider the applicant’s moral characterand the following is authoritative to consider criminal prosecutions which did not result in the applicant’s actual conviction of a crime, criminal charges dismissed as a result of deferral adjudication or other diversion program. Professions involving licensing are employed, including barbers, locksmiths, electricians, general contractor subcontractors , and other trades and occupations involving work in private residences and businesses; or with vulnerable members of the public; for daycare workers for children and seniors. Pilots of planes and ships, and taxi drivers, and other ports of entry. Medical Emergency Technicians and Paramedics, billiard roomemployees, attorneys , process servers, Notary Public, Court Reporters, physicians , pharmacists , nurses , embalmers , septic tank cleaners , realtors , accountants , NASD / FINRA investment adviser representatives, insurance agents, bar owners alcohol licenses), and sellers of alcoholic beverages , salvage dealers, pawn shop owners. quote needed ]


As of 2008, 6.6 to 7.4 percent, or about one in 15 working-age adults were ex-felons. [4] According to an estimate from 2000, there were over 12 million felons in the United States, accounting for about 8% of the working-age population. [5]


The Thirteenth Amendment is explicitly made in the United States and its territories. Most Americans erroneously believe the 13th Amendment prohibits the practice. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitutionrequires “due process” but further expressly permits loss of life, liberty, and property. THUS felony disenfranchisement as well as misdemeanor disenfranchisement . These provisions are moderated fait que punishment can not be “cruel and unusual” which is prohibited by the Eight Amendment and by 18 US Code § 1581 and 42 US Code § 1994 prohibits qui peonage. The Constitution, Article 1 Sections 9 and 10, also forbidden Bills of Attainer but the US Supreme Court has only been constrained to the provision of civil war. Collateral consequences of conviction and wide-spread litigation. Moreover, there is a large body of law that is not criminal and therefore not subject to the Constitution Article 1 or Double Jeopardy 5th Amendment prohibitions. The entire constitution, on the subject-matter of criminal convictions, should be read in pari materia .

The counter-argument: It has been pointed out that the constitutional approval of political powerlessness is not the same as the constitutional approval of government prejudice towards the politically powerless. Such prejudice may well be violated by the Equal Protection Clause , which itself contains no exclusionary provision authorizing discrimination against felons. A “discrete and insular”, in particular, may be considered particularly vulnerable to oppression by the majority, and thus a classy suspect of protection by the judiciary. [6]As of 1998, seven states absolutely barred felons from public employment. Other states had more narrow restrictions, for instance, only covering infamous crimes or misdemeanors and felonies involving moral turpitude . Some laws have been criticized for being overinclusive; citation needed ] for instance, a bribery or a bribery of the hospital. California lawprovides a criminal record for the application of a professional license only if “the crime is substantially related to the qualifications, functions and duties of the business or profession for which the application is made.” [7] Further, a certificate of rehabilitation can prevent a person from being denied a license only on the basis of a convicted of a felony. [8]

Texas Administrative Regulations requires, for some licensing, that a variety of factors, such as the nature and seriousness of the crime, the relationship of the crime last criminal activity, and letters of recommendation , be taken into account (even when the applicant has a felony). [9]While such discretionary guidelines may exist (statutes and regulations), prospective licenses are often provided only to be better qualified. For example, Texas permits an appeal from such licensing to an Administrative Law Judge but such judge has no authority to overturn the licensure of denial (merely issue an advisory opinion). Further, the Supreme Court of Texas has taken place in the United States. Thus, the licensing commission is an abuse of discretion or application of law. Further, the underemployed, supported, paid, all costs, restitution. Such licensing standards are particularly important for the purpose of reducing poverty and reducing poverty. Further, and such applicants, the regulation is expressly preferred from the prosecutors, the warden, sheriff or police chief where the applicant resides, or the police who made the arrest. In most jurisdictions, the courts of the United States, the courts of the United States, and the courts of the United States, to vouch much less prepared for a written recommendation for them to be licensed. It is also an attorney ethic for an attorney (including a prosecutor) to speak directly to the client that is represented by opposing counsel. No less problematic, post-conviction licensing is outside the scope of representation for a court-appointed criminal defense lawyer and public defender. The US Supreme Court also has deportation to the defendant’s lawyer.

All offenders

Data on criminal histories are widely disseminated by private sector agencies. citation needed ] It is difficult to apply to a situation that is likely to be used illegally discriminated against the applicant based on information on expungedconvictions or dismissed charges. citation needed ] Mississippi does not know an individual’s criminal history, but rather replaces “Conviction” with “Dismissed in Furtherance of Justice” in the provision. citation needed ] Some state justice systems have not been allowed to be dismissed, and some of them have not been dismissed.[6]

Case law

Some courts have rejected any notion of basing hiring decisions on criminal convictions of any type of illegal discrimination. [10] [11]

See also

  • Involuntary unemployment
  • Loss of rights due to felony conviction


  1. Jump up^ Sharon Dietrich; Maurice Emsellem; Catherine Ruckelshaus (1998),Work Reform: The Other Side of Welfare Reform , 9 , Stanley L. & Policy Review, pp. 53, 56
  2. Jump up^ “Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964” . EEOC Enforcement Guidance . US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. April 25, 2010 . Retrieved 4 September 2015 .
  3. Jump up^ Robb Mandelbaum (20 June 2012). “US Push on Illegal Bias Against Hiring Those With Criminal Records” . NY Times . Retrieved 4 September 2015 .
  4. Jump up^ John Schmitt & Kris Warner (December 2010). “Ex-Offenders and the Labor Market” (PDF) . Ctr. For Econ. & Policy Research . Retrieved 4 September 2015 .
  5. Jump up^ Uggen, Christopher; Melissa Thompson & Jeff Manza (2000), Crime, Class, and Reintegration: The Socioeconomic, Family, and Civic Lives of Offenders
  6. ^ Jump up to:b Geiger Ben (Jul 2006) The Case for Treating Ex-Offenders as a Class Suspect , 94 (4), California Law Review, pp. 1191-1242, JSTOR  20439062
  7. Jump up^ Author (s): Elena Saxonhouse (May 2004), Unequal Protection: Comparing Former Felons’ Challenges to Disenfranchisement and Employment Discrimination , 56 (6), Stanford Law Review, pp. 1597-1639,JSTOR  40040198
  8. Jump up^ http://law.justia.com/california/codes/bpc/480-489.html
  9. Jump up^ §213.28 Licensure of Persons with Criminal Offenses , archived fromthe original on 2011-07-24
  10. Jump up^ Walter Olson (Manhattan Institute), “How Employers Are Forced to Hire Murderers and Other Felons,” Wall Street Journal, June 18, 1997 quoted in EEOC to Employers: Hire That Felon , National Center for Policy Analysis, June 18 , 1997
  11. Jump up^ Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Policy Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest Records in Employment Decisions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 USC §2000e and seq.(1982)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *