Sealing does not expunge a record, however, and it remains available to law enforcement authorities and certain others (e.g., employment involving vulnerable populations) and may be used in a subsequent criminal case.  Criminal justice agencies (as defined in ch. 7, § 167) have immediate access to and permission to use sealed criminal record information. ch. 276, § 100D. In response to inquiries by authorized persons other than law enforcement, the courts, or an appointing authority will report that “no record exists.” ch. 276, § 100A. Sealing does not restore state firearm disabilities. ch. 140, § 122; Rzeznik v. Chief of Police, 373 N.E.2d 1128 (Mass. 1978).   The purpose of the statute is rehabilitative, to ensure privacy after a period of time, not to defeat law enforcement interests.  See Com. v. Doe 648 N.E.2d 1255, 1258 (Mass. 1995) (statutes “protect individuals from unnecessary and overbroad dissemination of criminal record information”).  The records of conviction of public officials and employees may not be sealed. ch. 276, § 100A.

Effect of sealing in employment, housing, and licensing

A person may answer that there is “no record” with regard to sealed cases. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 276, § 100A:

An application used to screen applicants for employment, housing or an occupational or professional license which seeks information concerning prior arrests or convictions of the applicant shall include the following statement: “An applicant for employment or for housing or an occupational or professional license with a sealed record on file with the commissioner of probation may answer ‘no record’ with respect to an inquiry herein relative to prior arrests, criminal court appearances or convictions. An applicant for employment or for housing or an occupational or professional license with a sealed record on file with the commissioner of probation may answer ‘no record’ to an inquiry herein relative to prior arrests or criminal court appearances. In addition, any applicant for employment or for housing or an occupational or professional license may answer ‘no record’ with respect to any inquiry relative to prior arrests, court appearances and adjudications in all cases of delinquency or as a child in need of services which did not result in a complaint transferred to the superior court for criminal prosecution.” The attorney general may enforce the provisions of this paragraph by a suit in equity commenced in the superior court.

In October, 2018, the requirements of this section were extended to applications for housing and occupational or professional licensure.  See §§ 189 through 194 of 2018 Mass. Acts ch. 69.

B.  Expungement of marijuana and decriminalized offenses 

Marijuana convictions: Low-level marijuana convictions became eligible for expungement by petition with no waiting period in 2018, under a statute authorizing relief for conduct no longer a crime, as a result of previous decriminalization legislation. Mass Gen. Laws ch. 276, § 100K(a)(2). Expungement is discretionary, with a court required to determine “what is in the best interests of justice.” See ch. 276, § 100K(b); Commonwealth v. K.W., 193 N.E.3d 1069, 1079 (Mass. 2022) (reversing a lower court’s denial of expungement of two marijuana possession records under the 2018 law because applicants for relief under this section “must be entitled to a strong presumption that their records should be expunged”).

In 2022, a new provision specifically authorized expungement of marijuana possession, expanding eligibility to include previously decriminalized cultivation and possession with intent to distribute offenses, and removing the “best interests of justice” standard. S.3096 (2022). Upon a petition for an eligible marijuana offense, a court must enter an order expunging the record within 30 days. See ch. 276, § 100K¼.

Decriminalized offenses:  Records of conviction for decriminalized offenses may be sealed immediately “except in cases where the elements of the offense continue to be a crime under a different designation.”  § 100K(a)(2). 

C.  Judicial sealing of non-conviction dispositions

Eligibility

Sealing of non-conviction records prior to the waiting periods specified in § 100A and without the same conditions relating to prior or pending cases is available from the sentencing court in its discretion, under a constitutional test that has evolved over the past 30 years. Mass Gen. Laws ch. 276, § 100C. Under the first paragraph of this section, acquitted conduct, no bills, and a finding of no probable cause are sealed automatically upon disposition by the commissioner of probation and the clerk of the courts.  Under the second paragraph, charges dismissed or nol prossed may be sealed on disposition “if it appears to the court that substantial justice would best be served.” (As noted previously, non-conviction records may also be sealed automatically if the conditions set forth in § 100A are satisfied).

Process

The Massachusetts Trial Court publishes a Petition to Seal Criminal Records for Nolle Prosequi or Dismissal (updated 02/2024), which is used to file for eligible cases in the court. The process is free and requires a hearing in court.

Sealing of non conviction records under § 100C is subject to constitutional case law, which since 2014 has required a judicial finding of “good cause” in order to seal any non-conviction record without complying with the waiting periods and other conditions of § 100A, even records governed by the first paragraph of § 100C.

Cases where there has been a “continuance without a finding” (see below) are subject to sealing under this same discretionary standard on paragraph 2 of 100C, and they may be subject to the waiting period specified in § 100A.

Constitutional case law governing sealing of court records, including non-conviction records

In 1989, the federal court of appeals for the First Circuit held unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds the statute authorizing automatic sealing of non-conviction court records under § 100C. See Globe Newspaper Co. v. Pokaski, 868 F.2d 497, 506-07) (1st Cir., 1989) (sealed records of acquittals under the first paragraph of § 100C must be made available to media unless there has been an individualized finding that sealing is “necessary to effectuate a compelling governmental interest”).  In Com. v. Doe, 420 Mass. 142 (Mass. 1995), the Massachusetts Supreme Court extended the holding of Pokaski to cases described in the second paragraph of § 100C (cases nol prossed), noting that a defendant denied request for immediate sealing may still request sealing after satisfying the waiting period specified in § 100A.

Some two decades later, the Massachusetts high court held that a lower standard of “good cause” was more appropriate for sealing of non-conviction records in light of the concerns expressed by the legislature in intervening years about “the negative impact of criminal records on the ability of former criminal defendants to reintegrate into society.” See Com. v. Pon, 469 Mass. 296, 297 (2014).⁴

In determining whether good cause for sealing has been established, a court must balance the public’s “general right to know” with the interests of the defendant and the state in keeping the information private. The Pon Court established factors relevant to this good cause balancing test:

At a minimum, judges should evaluate the particular disadvantages identified by the defendant arising from the availability of the criminal record; evidence of rehabilitation suggesting that the defendant could overcome these disadvantages if the record were sealed; any other evidence that sealing would alleviate the identified disadvantages; relevant circumstances of the defendant at the time of the offense that suggest a likelihood of recidivism or of success; the passage of time since the offense and since the dismissal or nolle prosequi; and the nature of and reasons for the particular disposition.

Id. at 316.  While the first paragraph of § 100C was not at issue in Pon, the court found “reasonable” the application of a single “good cause” standard for sealing under both paragraphs, “until the Legislature revisits the language of G.L. c. 276, § 100C, first par., or until the issue of its interpretation comes before us.” 469 Mass. at 313, n. 24.

Pokaski and its state court progeny have not been interpreted to apply to sealing of records under § 100A, so that a person seeking to seal a non-conviction record who cannot satisfy the “good cause” standard in § 100C may apply for sealing after satisfying the waiting period and other conditions in § 100A.

Effect

Sealed non-conviction records “shall not operate to disqualify a person in any examination, appointment or application for public employment in the service of the commonwealth or of any political subdivision thereof.”  Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 276, § 100C.   In addition, an application used to screen applicants for employment, housing or an occupational license that seeks information concerning prior arrests or convictions of the applicant shall include the following statement: “An applicant for employment with a sealed record on file with the commissioner of probation may answer ‘no record’ with respect to an inquiry herein relative to prior arrests or criminal court appearances.” Id. Effective October 2018, this provision was extended to applications for housing, and for professional or occupational licensure. See §§ 189 through 194 of2018 Mass. Acts ch. 69.

D.  Deferred adjudication (“continuance without a finding”)

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, § 18.  Relevant procedure is explained in detail in Commonwealth v. Powell, 453 Mass. 320 (Mass. 2009).  Courts (including municipal and juvenile courts) may dismiss a valid indictment, in certain circumstances, after accepting an admission sufficient to impose a finding of guilt, even over the government’s objections, by continuing the case without a finding, and imposing conditions.  This disposition avoids prejudice to the Commonwealth by accepting the defendant’s guilty plea before placing him on probation, so that a violation of the terms of probation would result in an adjudication of guilt and imposition of sentence. See also Commonwealth v. Cheney, 440 Mass. 568, 571 (2003) (explaining the CWOF procedure).  CWOF is not available after trial.  See Commonwealth v. Norrell, 423 Mass. 725, 727 (1996).

Immediate sealing is allowed in CWOF cases once probation has been successfully completed and the charges are dismissed, if the “good cause” standard in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 276, § 100C is satisfied.  If it is not, a CWOF may be sealed pursuant to ch. 276, § 100A (see the above section on non-conviction records). Information about pending CWOF charges may be obtained on the same basis as final convictions.  See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 6, § 172(a)(3).

E.  Pretrial diversion for youthful offenders

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 276A, § 2 et seq. authorizes pretrial diversion for first offenders between the ages of 17 and 21.  Records in such cases may be sealed in accordance with standards applicable to non-conviction dispositions.  Effective October 1, 2018, pre-arraignment diversion was also authorized for juveniles, and upon the successful completion, the court may dismiss the complaint; if the complaint is dismissed, the court must expunge the records, unless the child objects (see below for effect of expungement).  Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 119, § 54A.  Ineligible for diversion, are children indicted as youth offenders, charged with enumerated offenses, or charged with offenses with minimum terms of incarceration, potential incarceration of more than five years, or which may not be continued without a finding or placed on file.  Id. § 54A(g).  The district attorney is authorized to divert any child, without these eligibility restrictions.  Id. § 54A(d).

F.  Sealing of pardoned convictions

The record of a conviction that has been pardoned is automatically sealed.  Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 127, § 152; see Section IID, supra.

G.  Vacatur for victims of human trafficking

Effective July 1, 2018, convictions or delinquency adjudications for prostitution or simple drug possession may be vacated, and guilty pleas withdrawn, “upon a finding by the court of a reasonable probability that the defendant’s participation in the offense was a result of having been a human trafficking victim . . . .”  Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 265, § 59.  Where a child under the age of 18 was adjudicated delinquent for an offense of prostitution, “there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the child’s participation in the offense was a result of having been a victim of human trafficking or trafficking in persons.”  § 59(a)(2).  For adults, official documentation from any government agency of the defendant’s status as a victim of human trafficking “shall create a rebuttable presumption that the defendant’s participation in the offense was a result of having been a victim of human trafficking.”  § 59(a)(3).  Once a conviction has been vacated, the record may presumably be sealed pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 276, § 100C (non-conviction records).

H.  Sealing of juvenile records

Commitment to the department of a delinquent child or youthful offender does not operate to disqualify for future public service or permanently remove rights. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 120, § 21:

Whenever a person committed to the department by a court upon conviction of a crime is discharged from its control such discharge shall, when so ordered by the department, restore such person to all civil rights and shall have the effect of setting aside the conviction. The conviction of such a person shall not operate to disqualify him for any future examination, appointment or application for public service under the government either of the commonwealth or of any political subdivision thereof . . . . A commitment to the department shall not be received in evidence or used in any way in any proceeding in any court except in subsequent proceedings for waywardness or delinquency against the same child, and except in imposing sentence in any criminal proceeding against the same person.

Records on file with the office of the commissioner of probation must be sealed upon request if 3 years have elapsed since any court appearance or disposition in the case (including commitment supervision, probation and parole), and the person has not been adjudicated delinquent, found guilty of a crime (with the exception of some motor vehicle offenses), nor been imprisoned or committed to custody in the preceding 3 years.  Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 276, § 100B. To request sealing of eligible juvenile cases, the same form Petition to Seal is used as in adult cases. Upon sealing by the commissioner, court records are also sealed.

When records of delinquency appearances and delinquency dispositions are sealed by the commissioner in his files, the commissioner shall notify forthwith the clerk and the probation officer of the courts in which the adjudications or dispositions have occurred, or other entries have been made, and the department of youth services of such sealing, and said clerks, probation officers, and department of youth services likewise shall seal records of the same proceedings in their files.

Such sealed records of a person shall not operate to disqualify a person in any future examination, appointment or application for public service under the government of the commonwealth or of any political subdivision thereof; nor shall such sealed records be admissible in evidence or used in any way in any court proceedings or hearings before any boards of commissioners, except in imposing sentence for subsequent offenses in delinquency or criminal proceedings.

§ 100B.

I.  Expungement of juvenile and other records

Juvenile and under age 21 expungement: Effective October 1, 2018, juvenile records on file with the commissioner of probation, may be eligible for expungement in accordance with newly enacted §§ 100E through 100U of ch. 276 of the General Laws, § 195 of 2018 Mass. Acts ch. 69, as amended in 2020 by §§ 95 through 98 of 2020 Mass Acts ch. 253.

A petition for expungement may be filed with the commissioner of probation for up to two juvenile court records or two adult convictions before the age of twenty-one 3 years from the date of a misdemeanor offense, and 7 years from the date of a felony offense, so long as specified eligibility requirements are met. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 276, §§ 100F, 100G, 100I. Twenty criminal records are enumerated that are exempt from eligibility, including violent crimes, sexual offenses, and violations of various restraining orders. Mass Gen. Laws ch. 276, § 100J.

A form Petition for Expungement is available that is sent to the commissioner of probation. Upon receipt, the commissioner determines whether the request is eligible for expungement for §§ 100I and 100J. If it is not eligible, the request shall be denied in writing within 60 days of the request. If it is eligible, the commissioner notifies the district attorney in writing within 60 days of the request. ch. 276, §§ 100F(a), 100G(a). Within 60 days of the receipt, the district attorney shall notify the commissioner of any objections in writing. Id. The request, along with any response or objection, is forwarded to the court where the adjudication or conviction occurred. ch. 276, §§ 100F(b), 100G(b). If an objection is filed, a hearing is held within 21 days of receipt, and if no objection, the court has the discretion to grant or deny, without a hearing. ch. 276, §§ 100F(c), (d), 100G(c), (d). The court determines whether to grant or deny “based on what is in the best interests of justice.” Id. A granted order for expungement is forwarded to the clerk of court, the commissioner, and to the commission of criminal justice information services. ch. 276, §§ 100F(e), 100G(e).

Expungement of record without adjudication or conviction: A petitioner who has no more than 2 records that do not include an adjudication or conviction may send the form Petition for Expungement to the commissioner of probation. ch. 276, §§ 100H(a). Upon receipt, the commissioner determines whether the request is eligible for expungement. If it is not eligible, the request shall be denied in writing within 30 days of the request. If it is eligible, the commissioner notifies the district attorney in writing within 30 days of the request. Id. The same court process, standard for review, and forwarding of a granted order occurs as above. Id. at (b), (c), (d).

Records of error and decriminalized conduct:  Courts are also authorized to order expungement of a criminal or juvenile court record based on false identification or identity fraud, or official error.  Mass Gen. Laws ch. 276, § 100K.  Expungement is also authorized where the conduct is no longer criminal.  Id. The court has discretion to enter the order for expungement “based on what is in the best interests of justice.” Id. at (b). The court must hold a hearing if requested by the petitioner or the district attorney, and the court shall enter written findings of fact. Id. As with the above sections, any granted order is sent to the clerk of court, commissioner, and commissioner of criminal justice information services. Id. at (c).

The opinion of the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) of Massachusetts in Commonwealth v. K.W., 490 Mass. 619 (2022) made it easier to expunge records under this section K. Under the K.W. case, if any one of the six eligibility categories are satisfied, the petitioner is “entitled to a strong presumption in favor of expungement,” and “may be denied only if a significant countervailing concern is raised in opposition.” The Supreme Justice Court also held that petitioners “need not articulate the particular disadvantages they might confront as a result of their records remaining accessible to those who have access to sealed records.” Id.

Effect of expungement:  Expungement is defined in a new § 100E as “the permanent erasure or destruction of a record so that the record is no longer accessible to, or maintained by, the court, any criminal justice agencies or any other state agency, municipal agency or county agency.”  Upon receipt of an order pursuant to 100F, 100G, 100H or 100K, the clerk, commissioner of probation, and commissioner of criminal justice information services shall expunge the record, order all criminal justice agencies to expunge all publicly available police logs within their care, custody or control. ch. 276, § 100L. All agencies shall respond to inquiries from any party, that no record exists. Id. at (b).

The effect of expungement is further described in § 100N.

No county agency, municipal agency or state agency shall, directly or indirectly, when determining a person’s eligibility for examination, appointment or employment with any county agency, municipal agency or state agency require the disclosure of a criminal record expunged pursuant to section 100F, section 100G, section 100H or section 100K. An applicant for examination, appointment or employment with any county agency, municipal agency or state agency whose record was expunged pursuant to section 100F, section 100G, section 100H or section 100K may answer ‘no record’ with respect to an inquiry herein relative to prior arrests, criminal court appearances, juvenile court appearances, adjudications, or convictions. An applicant for examination, appointment or employment with any county agency, municipal agency or state agency whose record was expunged pursuant to section 100F, section 100G, section 100H or section 100K may answer ‘no record’ to an inquiry herein relative to prior arrests or criminal court appearances

§ 100(N)(a).

An application for employment used by any employer which seeks information concerning prior arrests or convictions of the applicant shall include the following statement: “An applicant for employment with a record expunged pursuant to section 100F, section 100G, section 100H or section 100K of chapter 276 may answer ‘no record’ with respect to an inquiry herein relative to prior arrests, criminal court appearances or convictions. An applicant for employment with a record expunged pursuant to section 100F, section 100G, section 100H or section 100K of chapter 276 may answer ‘no record’ to an inquiry herein relative to prior arrests, criminal court appearances, juvenile court appearances, adjudications or convictions.

§ 100(N)(b). Records related to expungement proceedings are excluded as public records. Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 276, § 100(O). Finally, records expunged pursuant to §§ 100F, 100G, 100H, or 100K may not be inspected “in any form and by any person.” ch. 276, § 100(Q). 

IV.  Criminal record in employment & licensing

The only substantive limitation on consideration of a felony conviction by employers and licensing boards is where it has been pardoned, or the record has been sealed. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 127, § 152; Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 276, § 100A, 100C. Some procedural limits apply, as detailed below.

A.  Fair employment practices

Massachusetts’ general fair employment practices law offers limited protection to those with criminal records.  The law makes it unlawful for any covered employer, public or private, to request any information from an employee or applicant for employment about:  (1) an arrest without conviction; (2) a first conviction for misdemeanors such as simple assault or minor traffic violations; and (3) any conviction of a misdemeanor that occurred five or more years before the application date.  See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, § 4(9) (It shall be an unlawful practice for an employer “to request any information . . . regarding: (i) an arrest, detention, or disposition regarding any violation of law in which no conviction resulted, or (ii) a first conviction for any of the following misdemeanors: drunkenness, simple assault, speeding, minor traffic violations, affray, or disturbance of the peace, or (iii) any conviction of a misdemeanor where the date of such conviction or the completion of any period of incarceration resulting therefrom, whichever date is later, occurred three or more years prior to the date of such application for employment or such request for information, unless such person has been convicted of any offense within three years immediately preceding the date of such application for employment or such request for information”).  The law is enforced by the Massachusetts Commission against Discrimination, and procedures are set forth in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, § 5.

B.  State-wide “ban-the-box” policy

In 2010, public and private employers were made subject to a “ban-the-box policy” that prohibits inquiry into criminal records on an initial job application, unless the particular job is one for which a convicted person is at least presumptively disqualified by law, or the employer “is subject to an obligation imposed by any federal or state law or regulation not to employ persons, in either 1 or more positions, who have been convicted of 1 or more types of criminal offenses.” See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, § 4(9 ½).  Even when no exception applies, employers will still have the right to inquire into an applicant’s criminal history at any time after the initial application, such as in a job interview.

The City of Boston and several other Massachusetts jurisdictions have adopted more stringent policies for their vendors and other private contractors, requiring them to determine whether particular positions are sufficiently sensitive to warrant a background check, and obligating them to give reasons to people who are turned down for employment because of their conviction record.  Of special significance, Boston’s City Council ordinance, effective July 1, 2006, applies not only to hiring in city jobs, but also to the hiring decisions of an estimated 50,000 private vendors who do business with the City. See Ord. 2005 c. 7 (codified at 4-7). The successful campaign to reform Boston’s hiring policy was backed by a broad community coalition called the Massachusetts Alliance to Reform CORI (MARC).  See Beth Avery, Han Lu, National Employment Law Project, Ban the Box (October 2020).  According to the ordinance, the City of Boston and its vendors cannot conduct a criminal background check as part of their hiring process until the job applicant is found to be “otherwise qualified” for the position.  Ord. 2005 c. 7, supra.  This critical protection ensures that everyone is first considered for employment based on their actual skills and experience before the employer takes into account the presence or absence of a criminal record.  The ordinance also requires that the final employment decision, which includes information about the individual’s criminal record, also considers the age and seriousness of the crime and the “occurrences in the life of the Applicant since the crime(s).”  Id.  In addition, the Boston ordinance creates important appeals rights for those denied employment based on a criminal record and the right to present information related to the “accuracy and/or relevancy” of the criminal record.  Id. 

C.  Occupational licensing

Consistent with a national trend towards more transparent and clear licensing standards and determinations, in 2018 licensing authorities were directed to provide “a list of the specific criminal convictions that are directly related to the duties and responsibilities for the licensed occupation that may disqualify an applicant from eligibility for a license.” See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 6 § 172N; see also 2018 Mass. Acts ch. 69.

While Massachusetts’ general nondiscrimination law applies only to misdemeanors, some licensing schemes incorporate some variation of a “direct relationship” test.  See, e.g., Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 52D (“The board . . . may [discipline] any dentist convicted . . . of a felony related to the practice of dentistry”); ch.112, § 61 (board may discipline holder of medical license for “a criminal offense which is reasonably related to the practice of the profession”); ch. 112,  § 189 (real estate appraisers may be disciplined based upon conviction of “a crime which is substantially related to the qualifications, functions, and duties of a person developing appraisals and communicating appraisals to others, or convicted of any felony”).

D.  Limitation on access to records: CORI

Rather than directly limiting consideration of conviction in employment and licensing decisions, Massachusetts limits the availability of conviction-related information through the Criminal Offender Record Information System (CORI).  Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 6, §§ 168, 172. The CORI system was reformed in 2010 to increase employer access to records but at the same time to limit the extent to which the employer may inquire into an applicant’s criminal record, to change the procedure by which employers may obtain and rely on criminal records, and to give employers who rely on CORI records protection against negligent hiring.  See 2010 Mass. Acts, ch. 256, § 21. See also Com. v. Pon, discussed supra; Massing, CORI Reform—Providing Ex–Offenders with Increased Opportunities Without Compromising Employers’ Needs, 55 Boston B.J. 21, 22, 24 (2011).

In general, employers and licensing agencies will not have access to sealed records: five years in the case of misdemeanors and ten years for felonies.  See above.⁵ Section 172 sets both a tiered system of access, with law enforcement and the subject of records given full access; requesters authorized or required by law to obtain criminal history information have access necessary to comply with their obligations; requesters seeking records for employment or licensing purposes (including volunteers) have access to pending charges, felony convictions for 10 years and misdemeanors for five years if there have been no intervening convictions; and members of the general public somewhat more limited access.  See § 172 (a)(1) through (5).  Other entities are specifically authorized to obtain records, such as housing authorities and schools, and facilities caring for vulnerable populations.  See § 172(a)(6) through (30). Employers and others will still be able to access indefinitely information on certain convictions, including those for murder, voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, and certain sex offenses, unless sealed.  § 172(b). Employers who wish to question an applicant about the results of a CORI records check must first provide the applicant with a copy of any criminal record that it has obtained. § 172(c). If the employer decides not to hire an applicant in part or in whole because of the applicant’s criminal history record, the employer must, if it has not already done so, provide the applicant with a copy of the record. Id.  

E.  Negligent hiring liability and exposure to discrimination claims

Massachusetts law grants limited protection against negligent hiring for volunteers:

No employer or person relying on volunteers shall be liable for negligent hiring practices by reason of relying solely on criminal offender record information received from the department and not performing additional criminal history background checks, unless required to do so by law; provided, however, that the employer made an employment decision within 90 days of obtaining the criminal offender record information and maintained and followed policies and procedures for verification of the subject’s identifying information consistent with the requirements set forth in this section and in the department’s regulations.

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 6, § 172(e).  This provision also protects an employer who relies on CORI records from being sued under the nondiscrimination laws based upon erroneous information. Id. See National Employment Law Project, States Adopt Fair Hiring Standards Reducing Barriers to Employment of People with Criminal Records 3 (August 2012) (“The [Massachusetts] bill uniquely tackles the issue of inaccurate commercial background screeners by creating an incentive for employers to use the state’s criminal history database, which then limits the length of time that criminal history information is available. It also ensures that a denied applicant receives a copy of his or her record, paralleling one component of the federal consumer protection law, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which applies to commercially-prepared background checks.”).

F.  Employment bars in human service jobs

A sweeping bar on employment of people with convictions in state and state-funded human service jobs, issued by Governor Weld in 1996, disqualified certain offenders for life (violent and drug offenders), and others for periods of 10 and 5 years.  The bar was modified by Governor Swift in 2001, and further limited by Cronin v. O’Leary, 13 Mass. L. Rptr. 405, 2001 WL 919969 (2001) (striking down lifetime bar on constitutional grounds, and requiring a hearing to determine fitness).