Tag: Vermont

Vermont becomes 8th state to ban the box in private employment

Starting next summer, private as well as public employers in Vermont will no longer be permitted to ask about a job applicant’s criminal history on an initial employment application.  The change comes with the enactment of House Bill 261, which Governor Peter Shumlin signed into law yesterday.  With the law’s enactment, Vermont becomes just the eighth state to ban the box in private employment.  When CCRC Board Chair Rich Cassidy testified in favor of the provision before the Vermont legislature, he emphasized the importance of extending the prohibition to private employers. In a signing ceremony, Governor Shumlin, who last year issued an executive order banning the box in public employment, had the following to say about the new law’s significance: Too many Vermonters with criminal records are unable to successfully re-enter their communities due to lack of employment. Banning the box is all about breaking down barriers and giving those Vermonters who have paid their debt to society a fair chance at finding a good job. Nobody wins when Vermonters are trapped in a cycle of unemployment and incarceration. According to Christopher Curtis, co-chair of the Governor’s Pathways from Poverty Council, This legislation will allow many qualified workers to get a foot in the door to employment – it’s a fair shake and a second chance for many applicants who might otherwise find their applications in the recycle bin as a result of a prior conviction. This only results in Vermonters not being able to keep their housing or meet other important obligations. Ban the box’ can help open up new job opportunities for Vermonters. Twenty-four states and the federal government have now adopted ban-the-box policies that apply to public employment, but Vermont joins only seven others (Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, and Rhode Island) in extending the policy to private employers. The ban-the-box movement has gained significant traction nation-wide:  In 2016 alone, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Wisconsin have also adopted such policies.  Last week, at President Obama’s direction, the Office of Personnel Management proposed rules that would ban the box in federal agency hiring.  However, the President declined to extend the rule to private employers by applying it to federal contractors to it. Under the new Vermont law, an employer may only ask about criminal history during an interview or after the prospective employee has been deemed otherwise qualified for the position. Employers that violate the law will be assessed a $100 civil penalty for each violation. Though the Vermont law applies generally to all employers, it does not apply to positions where state or federal law creates a mandatory or “presumptive” employment disqualification based on one or more types of convictions.  However, the law does provide that, in such cases, the scope of the inquiry may only cover those convictions that would trigger the disqualification. It also gives those excepted employees an opportunity to explain the circumstances of any conviction, including post-conviction rehabilitation. The law takes effect on July 1, 2017.  The press release on the signing from Governor Shumlin’s office is available here. Read more

Vermont becomes the 16th state to ban the box!

On April 22 Vermont became the 16th state to remove the question about criminal record from most state employment applications.   By Executive Order of Governor Peter Shumlin, people applying for most state jobs will not be required to undergo a background check until after they have been deemed qualified and offered an interview.       http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/osd.jshttp://api.bounceexchange.com/bounce/init1.js?tojQ=function&tzo=240&is_preview=false&website_id=914&resolution=1112×770&referrer=&calling_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.burlingtonfreepress.com%2Fstory%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2F2015%2F04%2F21%2Fvermont-criminal-history-ban-box%2F26141535%2F&visit_cookie=%7B%22lp%22%3A%22http%253A%252F%252Fwww.burlingtonfreepress.com%252Fstory%252Fnews%252Fpolitics%252F2015%252F04%252F21%252Fvermont-criminal-history-ban-box%252F26141535%252F%22%2C%22r%22%3A%22%22%7D&cookie=%7B%22v%22%3A%7B%22bx_click_url%22%3A0%2C%22bx_click_cid%22%3A0%2C%22pre_conv_url%22%3A%22http%3A//www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2015/04/21/vermont-criminal-history-ban-box/26141535/%22%2C%22referrer%22%3A0%2C%22article_count%22%3A2%2C%22article_url%22%3A%22http%3A//www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2015/04/21/vermont-criminal-history-ban-box/26141535/%22%7D%2C%22fvt%22%3A1422053351%2C%22vid%22%3A1430147252843978%2C%22ao%22%3A0%2C%22as%22%3A0%2C%22vpv%22%3A1%2C%22d%22%3A%22d%22%2C%22lp%22%3A%22http%253A%252F%252Fwww.burlingtonfreepress.com%252Fstory%252Fnews%252Fpolitics%252F2015%252F04%252F21%252Fvermont-criminal-history-ban-box%252F26141535%252F%22%2C%22r%22%3A%22%22%2C%22cvt%22%3A1430147252%2C%22gcr%22%3A65%2C%22m%22%3A0%2C%22lvt%22%3A1430147252%2C%22ibxt%22%3A%22MTQyMjA1Mjc0Nzg2OTA5Mg%253D%253D%22%2C%22sid%22%3A0%7D&vars%5Bsubscription%5D=none&vars%5Bbx_click_url%5D=0&vars%5Bbx_click_cid%5D=0&vars%5Bpre_conv_url%5D=http%3A//www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2015/04/21/vermont-criminal-history-ban-box/26141535/&vars%5Breferrer%5D=0&vars%5Bpaymentcard%5D=false&vars%5Blogged_in%5D=false&vars%5Barticle_visible%5D=true&vars%5Barticle_count%5D=2&vars%5Barticle_url%5D=http%3A//www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2015/04/21/vermont-criminal-history-ban-box/26141535/&vars%5Barticle_change%5D=0&vars%5Bgravity_ad_show%5D=false&vars%5B/neil-young-play-first-show-vermont%5D=false&vars%5B/winooski-rejects-new-obriens-liquor-license%5D=false&vars%5B/winooski-will-join-lawsuit%5D=false&vars%5B/vermont-finishers-boston-marathon%5D=false&vars%5B/neil-young-fans-line-tickets%5D=false&vdef%5Bbx_click_url%5D=0&vdef%5Bbx_click_cid%5D=0&vdef%5Bpre_conv_url%5D=0&vdef%5Breferrer%5D=0&vdef%5Barticle_count%5D=0&vdef%5Barticle_url%5D=0 “When we hire in-state, the first question will not be whether you’ve been convicted or arrested,” Shumlin said. “We will hold that question until the interview and give you a chance to qualify for the job for which you’ve applied.” About 8 percent of people seeking Vermont state jobs checked the criminal history box last year, according to the state Human Resources Commission.   Certain sensitive and law enforcement positions are excepted. In remarks at a signing ceremony, Shumlin and a key lawmaker said they were “waiting to see” if private employers ought also to be required to postpone inquiry into a job applicant’s criminal record. Governor Shumlin also reported that the Vermont legislature is “nearly finished” with a bill to allow more Vermonters to expunge criminal convictions from their records, including for youthful offenses.  Last year Vermont enacted the Uniform Collateral Consequences of Conviction Act, which authorizes courts to relieve mandatory collateral sanctions, and gives employers a measure of protection against liability for negligent hiring. Important support for the ban-the-box order came from T.J. Donovan, Crittenden County State’s Attorney: This is about reconciliation.  No prosecutor or judge expects a petty larceny or minor theft conviction to keep an offender from ever getting a job again.  Many times we don’t consider what that scarlet letter or that conviction is going to do to folks three, five, 10 years down the road. Some states, including Illinois, Hawaii and New Jersey, have passed laws that prohibit private employers from asking about criminal histories on job applications.  A committee of the Vermont House is is considering a similar bill, and Shumlin said “it’s worth a look”: “I would hope that by the state leading by example, that many private employers might adopt the same policy,” Shumlin said. “I know that’s happening in other states around the country.” “The state’s experience with this with state workers will help inform our process as we move forward with it in the future,” said Rep. Helen Head, D-South Burlington, chairwoman of the House labor committee. Read more

New York certificate scheme found inaccessible and ineffective

  The certificate system for restoring rights after conviction in New York no longer serves its intended purposes, according to an investigation by City Limits.  The problem is that Certificates of Relief from Disabilities (CRD) are supposed to be a means to rehabilitation for people sentenced to probation, but the judges authorized to issue them see them (in the words of one public defender) “as a gold star, as a thing you get after you’ve been rehabilitated.”  The Parole Board appears similarly reluctant to issue Certificates of Good Conduct (CGC) to people leaving prison, even after a waiting period. The requirement of proof of rehabilitation as the price of a certificate has created what the City Limits investigation describes as “a catch-22”:   A conviction can bar someone from public housing. It can keep them from getting professional licenses—such as the ones required to direct funerals, or be a security guard or a home health aide, among many others. And employers stigmatize people with convictions, making it hard for them to get jobs.  These are the problems certificates were created to remedy, but also the problems people often have to surmount before they’re deemed worthy of one. When Governor Hugh Carey approved the two-track system in 1976 he declared that “Providing a former offender a fair opportunity for a job is a matter of basic human fairness, as well as one of the surest ways to reduce crime.”  But apparently this animating spirit of the law has been all but forgotten. For years New York was the only state to offer relief from collateral consequences as early as sentencing, and was hailed as a model for other jurisdictions.  Indeed, 10 years ago advocates urged the Connecticut legislature to implement reforms modeled after New York’s law.  Now it seems New York could take a lesson from its neighbor to the East, whose recently revised relief scheme provides early targeted relief to aid rehabilitation, and fuller recognition of rehabilitation some time later. Part of the problem is that New York’s system tries to do too much with a single certificate. That is, both certificates have essentially the same legal effect, except that one (CRD) is for probationers with no prior felonies, and the other (CGC) is for all others.  In contrast, the two-stage relief process Connecticut has adopted addresses both reentry and full restoration, similar to the Uniform Collateral Consequences of Conviction Act adopted in Vermont, and is conceptually and functionally preferable to New York’s two-track certificate system. The clear distinction in function between early and later relief in Connecticut makes it easier for each to fulfill its assigned role.  New York’s system is coceptually muddled and therefore functionally ineffective. The Connecticut system also avoids the problem identified by City Limits that more liberal issuance of certificates to facilitate reentry at an early stage may water down their value later on: “if more people got certificates as a matter of course, it could end up undermining the idea that they show that someone is rehabilitated.” The City Limits investigation also found that certificates are issued rarely because few New York lawyers and judges know about them: Roland Acevedo, a lawyer who’s sued employers for discriminating against people with criminal histories, says lawyers are often as unaware about certificates as the people they represent. He adds that some judges, despairing of a defense lawyer’s ignorance, will suggest to the lawyer that they apply for a certificate for their client—that is, apply to the very judge suggesting that they apply.   “A lot of lawyers don’t know so they don’t ask,” Acevedo says. “It’s amazing how many people don’t know this law.” This is not to say that New York certificates don’t work in certain cases, but those cases are likely to involve capable lawyers with clients who know exactly what they want: But for those that do [know about certificates], Certificates can be powerful. After getting convicted of tax evasion back in 2010, the Ciprianis were in danger of losing the liquor licenses that made their restaurants possible. But the family, “whose lawyers are undeniably more talented than their cooks,” as the New York Observer put it, got a Certificate of Relief at their sentencing, which ultimately allowed them keep the licenses. But lawyers say that rarely happens for the average person.     Read more

Long waits for expungement frustrate public safety purposes

Recently, in commenting on a new expungement scheme enacted by the Louisiana legislature, we noted the disconnect between the stated reentry-related purposes of the law and its lengthy eligibility waiting periods.  If people have to log many years of law-abiding conduct before they can even apply for this relief, it is not likely to be of much help to people returning home from prison.  Were Louisiana lawmakers unaware that the new expungement law would be unlikely to serve its stated purposes, or did they have some reason for advertising the new law in terms they knew were inapt. The preamble to the new Louisiana law says it is intended “to break the cycle of criminal recidivism, increase public safety, and assist the growing population of criminal offenders reentering the community to establish a self-sustaining life through opportunities in employment.”  But a felony offender is ineligible to apply for expungement until ten years after completion of sentence, long after recidivism has ceased to be a statistical risk.  In other words, the new law is not likely to do much if anything to “break the cycle of recidivism” or help people “reentering the community” (presumably from prison).  Even misdemeanants have to wait five years before they are eligible. The only people whose records can be expunged immediately are those who were never convicted to begin with. Wouldn’t people returning to the community from prison be more likely to benefit from supportive social services, rehabilitative programming, and assistance with obtaining transitional jobs and housing?  It is possible that the legislators expected the availability of expungement at some future time to provide an incentive to stay on the straight and narrow — but the reference to employment opportunities upon “reentering the community” suggests they had something more immediate in mind.   Relief after a long period of law-abiding conduct also serves a useful purpose to recognize a person’s full rehabilitation, but it does nothing to overcome obstacles faced by people upon their release from prison. The formulaic recitation of public safety-related purposes to justify providing relief from collateral consequences is not unique to Louisiana, and neither is the apparent contradiction with those purposes presented by extended eligibility periods.  New broad expungement schemes in Indiana, Minnesota and Arkansas also make felony offenders wait years without another run-in with the law before they can apply for relief.  Any notion that expungement of conviction records will facilitate reentry or discourage reoffending is either mistaken or disingenuous.   Expungement of arrest records is another matter, though concepts of “reentry” and “recidivism” don’t strictly apply where a person is not convicted. So this raises three questions:  1) why can’t we enact relief from collateral consequences at a time when it will in fact facilitate reentry and impact public safety; 2) why aren’t we doing more to avoid conviction in the first place; and 3) why are legislators and other government officials so hesitant to justify restoration of rights in terms of fairness and/or reward? The answer to Question #1 is that only a few states have enacted laws authorizing relief from collateral consequences as early as sentencing, when it could be of genuine help with reentry.  New York has had such a law for years, for first offenders sentenced to probation. Vermont, Colorado and New Jersey now also have laws authorizing the sentencing court to dispense with mandatory collateral consequences, and bills that would accomplish this have been introduced in several other states.  Relief at sentencing is a feature of both the Uniform Collateral Consequences of Conviction Act and the Model Penal Code: Sentencing, so perhaps this will be the wave of the future.  Note, however, that not a single state provides record-closing relief to convicted persons prior to completion of sentence, so advocates would do well to consider more transparent forms of relief during the period covered by the sentence. Question #2 gets a more hopeful answer:  more than half the states have opportunities for diversion and deferred adjudication followed by expungement or sealing.  This means that people charged with minor offenses can avoid a conviction record if they successfully completion of probation.  But again, this is not a “reentry” remedy strictly speaking since by definition the person never leaves the community.  And, in those jurisdictions that condition eligibility on a guilty plea, they may be subject to collateral consequences during the period of probation.  The new Model Penal Code: Sentencing has provisions implementing both diversion and deferred adjudication that do not require a formal plea, and whose specific goal is to enable people to avoid incurring collateral consequences. Since there is never a conviction, the person may answer honestly that they have never been convicted.  These provisions originated in the 1970s when reformers were interested in encouraging rehabilitation through sentencing, as we perhaps are again today. (I would note it is high time that the federal government expanded the only authority it now has for deferred adjudication, 18 USC 3706, from drug possession to any minor offense.) Question #3 is rhetorical.   Read more

Louisiana’s new expungement law: How does it stack up?

Louisiana has far and away the largest prison population of any state in the country (847 per 100,000 people — Mississippi is second with 692 per), but until last year there was little that those returning home after serving felony sentences could do to unshackle themselves from their criminal records and the collateral consequences that accompany them. While Louisiana has for years authorized expungement of misdemeanor convictions and non-conviction records, the only relief available to convicted felony offenders was a governor’s pardon — very few of which have been granted in Louisiana in recent years. Most people convicted of a felony in the state, no matter how long ago and no matter how serious the conduct, were stuck with it.* That’s why we were interested to learn that in 2014 Louisiana enacted a brand new freestanding Chapter 34 of its Code of Criminal Procedure to consolidate and extend the law governing record expungement to many felonies. We decided to find out what the new law offers to those with felony records, and how it stacks up against the three other new comprehensive expungement schemes in Arkansas, Indiana, and Minnesota. We found that while a relatively large number of people with felony convictions are newly eligible for expungement relief, the law’s effectiveness is hampered by 1) unreasonably long waiting periods and 2) limited effectiveness in mitigating collateral consequences related to employment and licensure. Waiting periods   According to its preamble, the ostensible purpose of the new Louisiana law is to “to break the cycle of criminal recidivism, increase public safety, and assist the growing population of criminal offenders reentering the community to establish a self-sustaining life through opportunities in employment.” See Art. 971. The law states an aim to provide relief from post-9/11 restrictions on TWIC credentials necessary to work in ports or on vessels under the federal Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002.  Id. However, its eligibility waiting period seem inconsistent with these purposes: A felony record may not be expunged until ten years after completion of sentence, which itself may be many years after leaving prison.  Such a long waiting period is not likely to do much to “break the cycle of recidivism” or address the issues facing those “reentering the community” from prison. Even misdemeanants have to wait five years after completion of sentence to apply. Moreover, because the federal MTSA only restricts eligibility for TWIC credentials only for a ten-year period for most offenses, the new law does nothing to ease restrictions on maritime employment. By the time a person with a felony conviction becomes eligible for expungement, their TWIC eligibility has already been restored. The waiting periods for felony expungement under the three other comprehensive new expungement laws are shorter — though still long enough to make us question their utility in reducing recidivism or assisting reentry.   Eligibility for felony expungement in Indiana is three to five years years from completion of sentence or eight years after conviction (unless the prosecutor agrees to a shorter period) and five years after conviction for a misdemeanor.  In Minnesota the waiting period for expungement of all eligible felonies is five years after completion of sentence (two years for misdemeanors).  Arkansas allows “sealing” of felonies five years after completion of sentence, though misdemeanors are eligible for sealing as soon as the sentence is completed. (Compare the relief available as early as sentencing under the Vermont Uniform Act and Colorado’s new drug expungement laws.) A Louisiana record may not be expunged if the person has been convicted of a crime during the waiting period, or has charges pending. The same is true in Indiana and Minnesota. Like Minnesota, Louisiana places no limit on the number of felonies that may be expunged during a person’s lifetime, though in Louisiana a felony may only be expunged once every 15 years.  In Indiana, a person may seek expungement of multiple offenses through one expungement petition, but only one petition may be granted in a person’s lifetime. In Arkansas, an individual may only “seal” one felony conviction. Eligible offenses Unreasonable waiting periods aside, the Louisiana law takes a relatively expansive approach to eligibility, especially compared to the limits Arkansas and Minnesota place on the types of felonies that are eligible for relief.  Under Louisiana’s law, the only felonies that cannot be expunged are those for violent offenses, sex offenses, crimes against minors, and drug trafficking offenses (mere possession with intent to distribute is eligible for expungement). The only other jurisdiction with comparable scope is Indiana, which has similar limitations on violent offenses and sex offenses, but places no limit on the types of drug convictions that may be expunged and does not bar expungement of crimes against minors. Minnesota allows expungement of a list of enumerated minor non-violent felony offenses, and only minor drug distribution offenses may be expunged (most possession-only offenses are eligible).  Arkansas limits sealing to Level C and D felonies. Standards Under Louisiana’s new law, expungement is mandatory if a person meets all of the eligibility requirements.  This is also the case in Indiana for misdemeanors and minor felonies, though not for more serious crimes.  Minnesota and Arkansas require a judicial finding based on a balancing test.  In Minnesota, a felony can only be expunged if the court determines that the benefits of an expungement to the person seeking it are commensurate with concerns of the public and public safety, and with the burden on courts and public authorities to issue, enforce, and monitor an expungement order. In Arkansas, an order to seal records depends on a court’s determination that it is “in the interest of justice” based on consideration of a menu of factors. The fact that an expungement is mandatory in Louisiana if the eligibility requirements are met also means that expungement may be granted without a hearing. A hearing must be held only if the prosecutor or law enforcement objects to the expungement request on grounds of ineligibility. A hearing is generally required in Minnesota and Arkansas. Use of expunged records  Where Louisiana’s law looks most different from the other three laws is in its relatively limited legal and practical effect insofar as employment and licensing is concerned. Expungement of a felony conviction record in Louisiana essentially does two things: 1) It prohibits the state from disclosing records to the general public (as in almost all other states, the record remains available to law enforcement, prosecutors and courts); and 2) it relieves a person of any obligation to disclose the record, or the fact of the record’s expungement. The Louisiana law does not have a restorative effect on any rights lost (most basic civil rights are otherwise restored automatically upon completion of sentence), nor does it restrict the use of expunged records by licensing authorities or employers.  It has no effect on sex offender registration and does not restore handgun rights (long gun rights are not lost) — except, surprisingly, in domestic violence offenses. Though Louisiana’s law generally prohibits the state from releasing expunged records to the public, the law provides some significant exceptions. Most notably, it specifically allows disclosure of expunged records to a number of specified licensing boards, including those governing health care, the insurance industry, social work, and the bar, all of which are authorized to consider criminal records when making licensing determinations. It also allows disclosure for the purpose of screening applicants for licenses and employment involving the care or supervision of children.  Accordingly, while Louisiana’s law permits individuals whose records have been expunged to deny that they have been convicted, the range of permissible disclosures by the state qualifies this benefit. The other three states also allow expunged records to be used as predicate offenses, and for sentencing and sex offender registration purposes.   However, all three states restrict how an expunged record may be used by private and public entities in evaluating eligibility for employment, licensure, and other opportunities.  Indiana’s law is by far the most expansive, prohibiting employers, licensing boards, and anyone else from discriminating against a person based on a record that has been expunged, and even from asking about such a record.  Minnesota takes a similar approach by prohibiting discrimination, but only as it applies to public employment and licensing (with a large and growing list of excepted employers and licensing boards). Under Arkansas’s Criminal Offender Rehabilitation Act, a licensing board may not disqualify a person based on an “expunged” record — though, since Arkansas’ new law now styles what was once known as an “expungement” a “sealing,” it is unclear what affect this provision currently has.  Indiana and Minnesota additionally encourage hiring of those with expunged records by prohibiting admission of expunged convictions as evidence of negligence in negligent hiring actions. The Louisiana law contains no analogous provisions. Third party providers of records The Louisiana law does make some attempt attempt to addresses the problem posed by third party dissemination of expunged records, but it does so in a way that is likely to be ineffective in practice. The law prohibits private providers of criminal records (other than news organizations) from disseminating expunged records, but only if they have been put on notice by the subject of the expunged record. This notice must be sent by certified mail and contain a certified copy of the expungement order. Until a particular provider receives notice from the recipient of an expungement, the provider is entirely free (at least under state law) to disseminate the record to anyone, even if they have other notice it has been expunged. To ensure that expunged records do not reach a potential employer, a person would have to give notice to each and every private provider out there. This a practical impossibility, of course, but, even if it could be done, it would be ineffective because the only providers obligated by receiving notice are those that are not governed by the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Considering that a vast majority of private providers of criminal records are subject to FCRA, it is hard to see why this provision was included at all. The Indiana and Minnesota laws offer significantly greater protection against irresponsible private providers.  Here again, Indiana’s law is the stronger, placing a blanket prohibition on dissemination of expunged records by “criminal history providers.” This prohibition is unqualified: Dissemination is prohibited whether the provider has notice of it or not, putting the onus on the provider rather the individual. The Minnesota law occupies a middle ground, prohibiting dissemination by a “business screening service” if the service has notice of the expungement from any source.  Arkansas’s law does not address the issue of third party providers of records. Conclusion Louisiana’s new expungement law represents a significant and commendable move toward giving those with criminal records a chance to regain opportunities lost as a result of conviction. However, although it expands eligibility for expungment to a relatively large number of people, and makes relief mandatory upon a determination of eligibility, its benefits are limited by long waiting periods and limited legal effect. If Louisiana is serious about expanding employment opportunities to those with felony convictions, it would do well to enact measures limiting dissemination and use of expunged records by employers and other third parties, as Indiana, Minnesota, and (to a more limited extent) Arkansas have done.  Until expungement in Louisiana is more than a mechanism to limit official disclosure of records, those who might otherwise be eligible to apply for it may wonder whether it is worth the trouble and expense.   * Louisiana does have a quirky law from 1981 that permits the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Information to remove the records of anyone over the age of 60 “from active dissemination to eligible agencies” so long as the person hasn’t been arrested for 15 years. The removal isn’t mandatory, though, so it offers little comfort to anyone young or old.   Read more