Dayton Daily News: Should Private Employers Be Allowed to Ask about Criminal Backgrounds? Dayton Rep Proposes ‘Banning the Box’

The attention of some Ohio lawmakers, including Dayton Democrat Rep. Desiree Tims, is turning toward legislative efforts to block employers from inquiring about an applicant’s criminal history.

Removing conviction history questions on job applications, both in the public and private sector, is often referred to as a “fair chance” or “ban the box” law.

Ohio is among a consortium of 37 states, red and blue alike, that already have laws banning the box in public sector employment, according to the National Employment Law Project. Only 15 states, most of which lean Democratic, have extended that rule to the private sector.

. . . .

Tims’ forthcoming legislation won’t be the first bill in this 136th General Assembly to propose banning the box. It is one of several proposals in Senate Bill 143, a bipartisan measure introduced in March by Sens. Hearcel Craig, D-Columbus, and Bill Blessing, R-Colerain Twp.

. . . .

SB143 wouldn’t fully block private sector employers from doing their own due diligence. They could still perform background checks, but they would be blocked from considering “an arrest not followed by conviction or referral to or participation in a pre-trial diversion program.”

The proposal goes on to limit employers to only denying an applicant based on their criminal history if that applicant’s background has “a direct and adverse relationship with the specific duties of that job.”

In an interview, Blessing cast doubt on whether his Republican colleagues, who have a firm grip on the Ohio General Assembly, would put their weight behind SB143.

“I know that this is probably going to go nowhere in the General Assembly, but it’s a shame because it’s well-intended and I think it does try to address something that I think is a problem,” Blessing said.

Blessing believes “the box” exists on applications most often to filter out past convicts, to the point where he described their exclusion from serious consideration as “automatic” in most cases.

“I just think it’s a basic justice thing. You know, you’ve paid your debt to society,” Blessing said. “I believe there’s some nuance to this, but by and large, having employers just say, ‘You get one strike,’ and there’s no way you can repay your debt to society for us to say, ‘Oh, we’re not just going to overlook you’ — that’s just fundamentally unfair.”

. . . .

Read the full story at daytondailynews.com.