The case for uniform ban-the-box laws

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to assess the public policy benefits of ban-the-box laws, the administrative burden for employers created by disparate approaches to these laws among various states and cities and the value of adopting a federal ban-the-box law with a preemptive effect.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper uses a descriptive research method that examines statistical data regarding the recidivism and sustained employment and examples of states’ laws regarding restrictions or requirements of when criminal history inquiries can be made during the hiring process, notice requirements related to use of criminal history information and limitations on employment decisions based on criminal history information.

Findings

The paper finds that, given the public policy interests at stake and the relationship observed between recidivism and sustained employment, it is difficult to argue that states and local ban-the-box requirements are not rational and well-intentioned. However, a federal ban-the-box law with preemptive effect is likely the only viable solution for employers overburdened by this disparate approach to ban-the-box.

Originality/value

This paper provides an examination of why a federal ban-the-box law with preemptive effect is an attractive alternative to the current disparate approach to regulating criminal history inquiries by different states and local governments.

Citation

Nichols, R.S. and Dodds, A.K. (2017), "The case for uniform ban-the-box laws", Strategic HR Review, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 279-284. https://doi.org/10.1108/SHR-08-2017-0058