Insurance companies undermine fair hiring efforts

An investigation by the Wall Street Journal reveals the little-known role that insurance companies play in shaping employer policies on hiring people with a criminal record.  Joe Palazzolo reports in “Criminal Records Haunt Hiring Initiative” that the “unseen hand of commercial insurers” frustrates efforts by some employers to implement fair hiring policies, and gives others an excuse for maintaining broad prohibitions on hiring convicted individuals.  “An employee is typically excluded from standard insurance policy against fraud, theft, embezzlement and other crimes—known as a fidelity bond—as soon as the employer discovers that he or she has committed a dishonest act, whether recently or in the past.”

The extent of the problem is illustrated by the story of Louis Henry, an Alabama man who lost a sales-management position at a medical-technology company after one day on the job, when a background check revealed a dated conviction for misreporting the status of a loan on the books of a bank where he worked.   “A May 1 letter from the employer, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, said Mr. Henry’s record placed the company in violation of its insurance policies.”

Read more

Monster and other job sites sued for excluding people with convictions

naacp_logo_rgb-copyA New York City chapter of the NAACP filed a class action suit last month against a number of employers and prominent online job sites, claiming that job listings explicitly barring applicants with felony convictions violate city and state law. Industry giants Monster, Indeed, and ZipRecruiter are among the defendants. Accompanying the complaint are listings from those sites that seek IT engineers and administrators, exterminators, and couriers, all of which make it clear that those with felony convictions (and in one case even arrests) need not apply.

The suit was brought under the New York City Human Rights Law, which provides a means of enforcing employment discrimination prohibitions in Article 23-A of New York State law. Article 23-A forbids employers from rejecting applicants because of their criminal convictions without first affording them an individualized assessment (unless employment is barred by law).

Read more

New federal expungement filing raises stakes for DOJ

Not surprisingly, in the wake of U.S. District Judge John Gleeson’s extraordinary May 21 expungement order in Doe v. U.S., another petition asking for the same relief has now been filed with Judge Gleeson.  Also not surprisingly, since this new petition was filed by one of Ms. Doe’s co-defendants, the underlying facts in this second petition are similar. The second Jane Doe was a more culpable participant in the insurance fraud scheme, and was sentenced to 15 months in prison instead of probation.*  However, she has remained law-abiding since her release more than a decade ago, and like the first Jane Doe she has had a very difficult time getting or keeping a job because of her conviction.  It seems unlikely that the difference in the second Jane Doe’s role in the offense will make a difference in the way the court disposes of her petition.

Judge Gleeson has asked the government to show cause why the new petition should not be granted, which should guarantee that it gets attention at the highest levels of the Justice Department.  Argument has been set for September 18.  If there were any doubt about whether the government will prosecute its appeal of the first expungement order, it has probably been dispelled now that the proverbial floodgates appear to be opening. Potential amici should start lining up counsel.

Read more

Wisconsin considering redacting youthful dismissed charges

As part of budget deliberations, the Wisconsin Legislature’s Joint Finance Commitment approved a provision that would allow courts to remove records of certain dismissed charges from the computerized statewide records system.

Under current law, although certain conviction records of youthful defendants may be expunged, anomalously dismissed charges remain accessible.  The new provision would allow a judge to order removal of a record from the internet site if all charges have been dismissed; all charges carried a maximum penalty not exceeding six years of imprisonment; none of the charges were classified as violent crimes; and the charges were filed before the defendant attained age 25.  These are the same criteria that apply to expungement of youthful convictions. 

People who would benefit from the change include people whose only contact with the criminal justice system was a case that was ultimately dismissed after they went through deferred prosecution or a first offenders program.
The new law would apply retroactively, thus allowing individuals to apply for removal from the website of charges dismissed before the effective date of the provision.  The redaction of records would apparently apply only to records accessible on the website, not to court records accessible through the local clerk of court, nor to arrest records accessible through law enforcement agencies.

The state budget still awaits approval by both houses of the Legislature and by the Governor, who has broad authority for line-item vetoes.

Glenn Martin’s “prison-like” White House experience

4404748294_c6b5f2a596

The Crime Report published this report about Glenn Martin’s recent experience as an invited guest at the White House, described in Glenn’s open letter to the President, giving further details of the treatment he received and describing the Administration’s response.

Glenn Martin’s “prison-like” White House experience

July 2, 2015 09:01:56 am

By Graham Kates

Two weeks after criminal justice advocate Glenn Martin was nearly denied access to a White House event he was invited to, he’s still waiting for an explanation.

In a widely distributed “open letter” to President Barack Obama last week, Martin revealed that he was required to have a special escort in order to enter the White House complex for a discussion with senior officials on breaking down barriers facing ex-prisoners.

Martin, who is one of the country’s leading advocates for ending those barriers, is an ex-inmate himself. Now head of JustLeadershipUSA, he served time for a robbery conviction 20 years ago—and has since achieved national prominence for his work with former prisoners.

Although he was invited to the meeting, along with a select group of advocates, scholars, elected officials and law enforcement authorities, he was treated as a security risk.

“The staggering symbolism of the ordeal was not lost on me, Mr. President,” Martin wrote in the June 25 letter to Obama and Secret Service Director Joseph Clancy.

“In a country where 65 million people have a criminal record on file, being selectively barred from entering the White House for a discussion about those very same people was as insulting as it was indicative of the broader problem.”

Read more

Dissecting the REDEEM Act

The REDEEM Act, introduced in the US Senate in March by Senators Corey Booker (D–NJ) and Rand Paul (R–KY), seeks to expand employment opportunities for those with federal criminal records by giving federal courts sealing authority. Because courts have generally held they do not have inherent authority to seal records — at least where an arrest or conviction is valid — the Act would open an entirely new avenue of relief from many of the collateral consequences that result from a federal arrest or conviction. While in the past similar bills have not made it out of committee, the attention that criminal justice reform is currently receiving on the national political stage and the REDEEM Act’s bipartisan support could give the Act a fighting chance.

The Act, as introduced, is not without its flaws. Chief among them are its vague definition of what crimes are eligible for relief, the broad discretion courts would have to deny relief for eligible offenses, the significant exceptions to the confidentiality of sealed records, and the uncertain effect of sealing on collateral consequences. The good news is that the Act’s defects are not structural and can be easily remedied through the legislative process.

This post contains a nuts and bolts overview of the Act. In subsequent posts, we will take a closer look at ways the Act could be improved.  Since the procedures and eligibility criteria applicable to adult and juvenile offenses differ in significant ways, we look at each in turn. Read more

SBA relaxes rule against business loans to probationers, while other federal agencies keep collateral consequences unchanged

The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) last week published a final rule for its federal Microloan Program that will for the first time allow microloans to small businesses owned by someone currently on probation or parole. In its announcement, the SBA noted that this will “aid[] individuals with the highest barriers to traditional employment to reenter the workforce.”  The change was evidently prompted by a review of agency regulations requested by the Cabinet-level Federal Reentry Council established in 2010 by former Attorney General Eric Holder.

While the change is welcome, it leaves in place substantial restrictions for people under sentence in other SBA loan programs, discussed at length in a post on this site last December.

It is also striking for being the only relaxation of federal collateral consequences since the Reentry Council was established five years ago.  As reported on this site, federal agencies are said to be “mostly satisfied” with their the way their regulations address the situation of people with a criminal record.

Read more

White House escort insults and humiliates people with a record

June 25, 2015
President Barack Obama
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Obama,

I write to you as a national leader, criminal justice reform advocate, and founder of JustLeadershipUSA, a bold new organization dedicated to cutting the US correctional population in half by 2030 on the guiding principle that those closest to the problem are closest to the solution.

Recently, I had the honor of participating in a strategic planning initiative that addressed both the intersection of, and possible remedies to, the issues of gun violence, policing, and mass incarceration in the United States.  On Wednesday, June 17, 2015, George Washington University Law School served as host to a select group of civil rights and religious leaders, scholars, elected officials, law enforcement officials and foundation officers brought together by The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies and The Joyce Foundation.

Our day culminated with an invitation to join members of your domestic policy staff in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building for a discussion about their work on these issues. A day of thoughtful and inspired dialogue, however, quickly turned into one of needless humiliation and stigma for me. As each of my colleagues received green passes granting them immediate access, I received a pink ID bearing the label: “Needs Escort.” Its inspiration was quickly and unsurprisingly confirmed: anyone with a criminal conviction requires an escort at all times on the White House grounds. The staggering symbolism of the ordeal was not lost on me, Mr. President. In a country where 65 million people have a criminal record on file, being selectively barred from entering the White House for a discussion about those very same people was as insulting as it was indicative of the broader problem.

Along with millions of others, I have watched with tremendous pride and optimism as your administration has stated that our carceral policies are patently counterproductive. Further, those policies disproportionately target communities of color, running roughshod over our declared principles of justice, fairness, and proportionality in the process. I submit to you that the treatment I received as an invited White House guest, and by extension all others with prior convictions, further erodes the life of those principles. In your letters of commutation you have concluded, “Remember that you have the capacity to make good choices. By doing so, you will affect not only your own life, but those close to you. You will also influence, through your example, the possibility that others in your circumstances get their own second chance in the future.” This counsel is as applicable to our nation’s corridors of power as it is to our most travailed citizens. The work of the mature democracy is to organize itself in such a way that best enables that process without undue hardship.

Along my journey to national advocacy, I’ve disabused myself of several of our national delusions, the most poignant being the myth of the voiceless masses who require the spokesmanship of a noble and courageous few. I never met any of the alleged voiceless during my incarceration, only the deliberately silenced. In the corridors of our nation’s highest office, I found my voice and my person restricted in an agonizingly similar way to that which I encountered in prison. Rather than being debilitated, I walked away further emboldened and hopeful that when guided by a commitment to justice, power might listen.

There is strong evidence to believe that is the case. In your March interview with David Simon you stated rightfully: “Part of the challenge is going to be making sure, number one, that we humanize what so often on the local news is just a bunch of shadowy characters and tell their stories.” There is no expression capable of fully capturing how uplifting these remarks are for millions of our country’s men and women. In the spirit of that conviction, I humbly request a meeting with myself and a select group of other formerly incarcerated leaders at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

Glenn E. Martin
Founder and President
JustLeadershipUSA

 

 

DOJ on the fence about appealing federal judge’s expungement order

On June 23, the U.S. Attorney wrote to Judge Gleeson informing him that the government had not yet finally decided whether to appeal his May 21 expungement order in Doe v. United States, and requesting an opportunity to address the scope of the order in the event the appeal is withdrawn.  The government’s letter, reproduced in its entirety below, indicates that the government has been discussing with the FBI how the order might be modified to “effectuate the Court’s intention of precluding the petitioner’s prospective employers from learning of her health care fraud conviction” while also allowing the government “to pursue legitimate law enforcement objectives.”  Those objectives appear to relate to the arrest and prosecution of two of Ms. Doe’s codefendants who remain in fugitive status after more than a decade.  On June 24, in an order granting the government’s request, Judge Gleeson suggested that the government bring any concerns about the scope of the order to the court’s attention even while the appeal is pending.

Here is the text of the government’s June 23 letter: 

Read more

Collateral consequences a legacy of slavery

The debased legal and social status that results from criminal conviction is visited disproportionately on African-Americans.  Collateral consequences are the vehicle by which this country now imposes a permanent servitude on the descendants of those who were once literally owned by other human beings.  Mass conviction no less than mass incarceration is a legacy of slavery.  So we think it appropriate to commend to our readers Bryan Stevenson’s extraordinary interview for The Marshall Project in the wake of last week’s terrorist attack in Charleston.  It is incumbent on all of us to consider how the scheme of collateral penalties imposed by the criminal justice system is calculated to keep millions of Americans disenfranchised and impoverished, and to dedicate ourselves to dismantling it.

1 … 42 43 44 45 46 … 57