Yeesh! Can you believe this? State and municipal governments are releasing prisoners all across the nation. Are they concerned about public safety? Heck no! Their concern is for the poor criminal who will come out of incarceration to face the humiliating discrimination of a background check.
What I want to know is, who is liable when the released criminal commits another crime, either work-related or in a rented residence? Why should an employer or landlord have to assume “uninformed” liability for the the ” high risk offender” the state and/or municipality released unbeknownst to the community at large? Would an employer or landlord be found negligent if the jailbird re-offended and they HAD NOT done due diligence in a routine background check? ~LTG
San Francisco may bar employers, landlords from asking about arrests, convictions
A proposal would defer questions about criminal history until the applicant’s qualifications are considered.
City officials are considering a law that would prohibit private employers, landlords and city contractors from inquiring about an individual’s arrest or conviction history before determining whether that person is qualified for a job or housing.
If the law is approved, San Francisco would join Hawaii, New York, Massachusetts and Philadelphia in protecting most people with criminal records from blanket discrimination in the private job market. A handful of jurisdictions in Illinois and Wisconsin impose similar restrictions on landlords, and Seattle is now weighing a proposal comparable to San Francisco’s that does both. Read full article