In one survey, a total of 92% of responding employers stated that they subjected all or some of their job candidates to criminal background checks. Employers have reported that their use of criminal history information is related to ongoing efforts to combat theft and fraud, as well as heightened concerns about workplace violence and potential liability for negligent hiring. Employers also cite federal laws as well as state and local laws as reasons for using criminal background checks.
65 million Americans have an arrest or conviction record that shows up during a routine criminal background check. As of 2010, a quarter of ex-felons were African American, according to a recent study, which is twice their percentage of the general population. More than ever employers are using a criminal record as a criteria to disqualify prospective applicants. Some 90 percent of employers conduct criminal background checks, up from 51 percent in 1996, according to the National Employment Law Project.
In a case involving a criminal record exclusion, the Eighth Circuit in its 1975 Green v. Missouri Pacific Railroad decision, held that it was discriminatory under Title VII for an employer to “follow the policy of disqualifying for employment any applicant with a conviction for any crime other than a minor traffic offense.”
The Eighth Circuit identified three factors (the “Green factors”) that were relevant to assessing whether an exclusion is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity:
•The nature and gravity of the offense or conduct;
•The time that has passed since the offense or conduct and/or completion of the sentence; 91 and
•The nature of the job held or sought.
The fact of an arrest does not establish that criminal conduct has occurred.101 Arrests are not proof of criminal conduct. Many arrests do not result in criminal charges, or the charges are dismissed. Even if an individual is charged and subsequently prosecuted, he is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.
An arrest, however, may in some circumstances trigger an inquiry into whether the conduct underlying the arrest justifies an adverse employment action. Title VII calls for a fact-based analysis to determine if an exclusionary policy or practice is job related and consistent with business necessity. Therefore, an exclusion based on an arrest, in itself, is not job related and consistent with business necessity.
Another reason for employers not to rely on arrest records is that they may not report the final disposition of the arrest (e.g., not prosecuted, convicted, or acquitted). As documented in Section III.A., supra, the DOJ/BJS reported that many arrest records in the FBI’s III database and state criminal record repositories are not associated with final dispositions. Arrest records also may include inaccuracies or may continue to be reported even if expunged or sealed.
Employers have a common law duty to exercise reasonable care in hiring to avoid foreseeable risks of harm to employees, customers, and the public. If an employee engages in harmful misconduct on the job, and the employer has not exercised such care in selecting the employee, the employer may be subject to liability for negligent hiring.
