In March, we described a proposed federal rule that would expand the types of criminal records that must be disclosed by applicants seeking federal jobs and contracting work. Specifically, OPM proposes for the first time to require individuals applying for federal employment or contracts to disclose whether they have participated in pretrial diversion programs in the last 7 years. Our letter commenting on OPM’s proposal (reprinted below) points out that diversion is increasingly favored by states as a means of encouraging rehabilitation, and that this goal is advanced by the promise of avoiding the disabling collateral consequences and stigma that follow conviction. In treating diversions like convictions, the OPM proposal would subvert the many benefits of diversion that have encouraged their increased use by prosecutors in recent years, including allowing for positive community perceptions of the justice system. **Update (5/29/19): The federal government has withdrawn this proposal, as reported by the Washington Post.
Read moreCategory: Administrative law
Administration wants federal job seekers to disclose participation in diversion
A proposed federal rule, now open for public comment, would expand the types of criminal records that must be disclosed by applicants seeking federal jobs and contracting work. On February 22, 2019, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) proposed a new rule to modify its “Declaration for Federal Employment” form (OF–306)—used by federal agencies in applications for federal employment or contracting—to require applicants to disclose not only whether they have been convicted, imprisoned, on probation, or on parole in the last 7 years, as under the current rule, but also whether they have participated in any pretrial diversion or intervention programs during that look-back period. Such pretrial diversion and intervention programs “allow individuals to agree to comply with specific conditions in lieu of criminal prosecution and upon compliance, to have the charge(s) dismissed.” No conviction is entered—and in some cases, neither is a plea. **Update (5/29/19): The federal government has withdrawn this proposal, as reported by the Washington Post. Reform advocates and a growing number of state and federal prosecutors rightfully promote diversionary dispositions as key tools to reduce the collateral consequences of criminal justice system involvement. But OPM’s proposed rule treats participation in a diversion program—even where there is […]
Read moreNH limits denial of licenses based on criminal record
On July 2, 2018, New Hampshire’s Governor Sununu signed into law SB 589, making his state the 10th so far in 2018 to approve comprehensive limits on consideration of criminal record in occupational and professional licensing. Like enactments earlier this year in Indiana, Kansas, Tennessee, and Wisconsin, New Hampshire’s new law is intended to ensure that people with the requisite professional qualifications will not be unfairly denied a license based on their record of arrest or conviction. In this respect, it reflects the provisions of the Institute for Justice’s model occupational licensing act. New Hampshire’s new law, which goes into effect on August 31, authorizes individuals to seek a preliminary determination as to whether their criminal record will be disqualifying, and allows disqualification only based on a demonstrated public safety concern arising from the facts and circumstances of an individual’s situation. It requires a board to give reasons for denial in writing, to explain what remedial measures an individual may take to address the board’s concerns, and limits the amount of the fee the board may charge to render its determination. Finally, it requires each board to report annually on the number of licenses granted and denied to people with a criminal record. […]
Read moreCollateral Consequences in Occupational Licensing Act
We’ve noted in recent posts the numerous states that, just in the past three or four months, have enacted broad occupational licensing reforms affecting people with a criminal record. Many of these new laws have been influenced by a model developed by the Institute for Justice (IJ), a libertarian public interest law firm that has been litigating and lobbying to reduce barriers to work for more than two decades. In turn, states like Indiana, Kansas, Tennessee and Wisconsin have built upon IJ’s model to enact even more progressive schemes intended to ensure that people with the requisite professional qualifications will not be unfairly excluded based on a record of arrest or conviction. Now IJ has incorporated many of these progressive refinements into its original model licensing law, the Occupational Licensing Review Act (OLRA), and broken out the provisions relating to criminal records into a free-standing model act specifically directed at managing collateral consequences in the occupational licensing context, the new Collateral Consequences in Occupational Licensing Act (CCOLA).
Read moreCalifornia poised for major change in fair employment law
The California legislature has approved, and sent to the governor’s desk for signature, a bill that would dramatically expand protections for people with a criminal record under the state’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Currently FEHA bars only discrimination that has a racially disparate effect. If signed by the governor as expected, the new law will independently prohibit discrimination based on criminal record by most public and private employers, subject to FEHA’s administrative enforcement scheme. California will become only the fourth state in the country to extend the full protections of its fair employment law to individuals with a criminal record. (The others are New York, Wisconsin, and Hawaii).
Read more





