A reader sent me the following question.
I worked for a grocery store. Can a child molester be employed by the grocery store? I reported it to the manager, and showed proof and nothing was done about it.
There’s a lot going on here. What does the law require an employer to do (if anything) under these circumstances? And what should an employer do when it discovers it is employing a sex offender? Legal Advice Column
I’m glad to see that so far 100% of the comments on the article are tearing this author/lawyer a new one. His final statement was absurd.
A classic fear mongering article, to say the least. This guy’s basic human advice “do not hire a RC.
And hiring a murderer, thief, or drug addict is any better? Fun times.
More likely that people will get their feelings hurt than a re-offense. This lawyer’s response is some hogwash trying to appeal to the masses of ignorance.
This lawyer is pathetic. I hope he gets disbarred.
This is very interesting blog post. The atty is a wimp and the comments bear that out.
To say a person is an OSHA hazard waiting to happen and that clause could be applied to someone is a stretch because it could be then applied to so many coworkers and mgmt.
Bwahahahahah haha. I’m laughing so hard I’m crying LOL.
Ummm…I have been on here for years trying to end the registry and never had more of an opposite opinion to everyone else.
What this lawyer posted was dead on accurate. Just because we don’t like what he says doesnt mean the truth of his statements need to be quashed.
He says an employer is liable if he hires a registered person and they commit another crime, yet if you hire a non registrant and he murders someone you are fine. That is completely true. It doesnt matter how low recidivism is. Most employers are also protected from liability from hiring felons if the crime was committed more than 7 years ago. However, the registry negates that as it keeps the crime fresh and in many cases, forever.
What this lawyer posted is perfect evidence to use in showing how Unconstitional the registry is and why. He lays it all out perfectly. I don’t understand why you are all attacking the messenger of accurate info we can use to take down the registry in court.
Sorry, I wont jump on the bandwagon that opinions need to be quashed just because they hurt me if they are accurate. He isn’t perpetuating lies and fear mongering. He is giving us the simple reality of our crappy situation and doing his job of advising his clients how to avoid liabilty. It isnt his job to lie to his clients and put them at risk of liability just to make society a better place by helping one of us get a job and decrease our chance of recidivism.
I think you all are attacking the wrong guy and I am awaiting your wrath from my saying so.
I really can’t believe how nieve you all are and all those that commented on his post. After 5 years on here I have never been more disapointed in everyone’s knee jerk reaction.
You know who else doesn’t like that lawyer’s post and wants it taken down? The US governement. That’s right. Congrats. That lawyer is publicly saying what every business lawyer is privately telling their clients and what ALL hr departments already do.
The US government’s position is that the registry and IML are just lists of accurate information and that everyone on it should be looked at individually. The reality is, as this lawyer truthfully laid out, is that behind the scenes the list is a ban list. It’s that simple. The government is also well aware.
This lawyer should be hired by Janice to testify and not slammed for stating what happens behind the scenes anyway.
The author might well be the reason for so many “bad lawyer” jokes.
Chris is right. I don’t like the news from the lawyer, but he sheds light on an area that many of us have no visibility on. If there is a legal reason to not hire a RSO and this is common practice by HR and hiring managers, then I think that it constitutes punishment to be on the registry. In my personal experience, I have applied to many jobs (some of which I was clearly overqualified for) and gotten a first interview and then nothing. Not even a rejection. I think it is because they looked me up, but I am not sure….and I have no idea about their hiring policies. Many places don’t have a policy so when it is found out, the only option is to do what the lawyer says…not hire or fire.
Going one step further, does it matter if the registry is punitive? Does that makes it unconstitutional? I assume that for ex-post facto it does, but for those convicted after there was a registry, I don’t think it would change anything. Open to any comments on this.
His ignorance is astounding. The greatest fallacy is he starts his argument with categorizing and entire class of nearly a million people together. This guy is very similar to a perpetually reoffending sex offender. He gives the majority a bad name. He says he is all for rehabilitation and second chances. Oh, really! Your kind of compassion the world doesn’t need. He is probably one of those trophy hunters who kills big game in order to preserve the species. He should take some time to hear the success stories from real people of compassion who hired people from the registry and to learn how grateful they are to be given a second chance, how dedicated they are, and what great workers they are. He is the type that perpetuates the problem. He seems to have the misconception that all people on the registry are violent predators. Does he even know that the majority are one time offenders, many had non-contact offenses, and most have been years and decades without another offense? Maybe he should attend the up coming conference by ACSOL so he could learn a little. I feel sorry for anyone that accidentally chooses this fear mongering, misinformed person to counsel them.
I am glad to see some of the long time posters on here re-evaluating their initial opinion of this lawyer and his piece.
I was getting so fed up with the initial knee-jerk bashing of him by respected people on here that I was about to take a long break from this site.
Hopefully Janice Bellucci will have time to comment in this or even reference it in her blog post to give us a logical and well thought out opinion on how this other lawyer’s post can hurt or help us.
I just hope in the future that some of us might refrain from the mass flood of bashing until making sure we thought it through. 99 percent of the time it is deserved, but it would be a shame to miss an opportunity to get someone on our side.
HAHAHA! He disabled comments after a bunch of people chimed in. Good works ladies and germs, you did good!
He was called out and he didn’t like it. 🙂
I’m not sure how to get the info to anyone becuase I’m not posting it publically. But. I was fired (in ca) for being an so and was fortunate to find a lawyer willing to settle it pro bono. I was grateful to be partially compensated, someone supporting so’s was compensated for his work and a company was punished for their breakage of laws. Of course it was only 1/100th of what they should have been liable for but hey, it was something.
Lawyer never directly answered actual question. “I worked for a grocery store. Can a child molester be employed by the grocery store? I reported it to the manager, and showed proof and nothing was done about it.”
I expect to the nosy employee who posed the question Jon’s response would be ” I’ll take this case. Lets dream up some damages with which we can sue the pants off your employer.”
I’ve had mixed results hiring felons. I’ve also had mixed results hiring the squeaky clean. (if that exists). Overall not much difference. The baggage that comes with the felons is difficult at times. Working in federal buildings, schools, airports etc. makes it hard to employee them. I can’t go to 20 to 30% of my own projects. And I would suppose my offence would be considered worse than most of theirs.
Yeah, I am actually going to keep this article in my arsenal as the guy is stating facts that need to be addressed by a court. This is one of the most straight forward articles and examples of the truth that I have seen. Chris F and Will etc are right about this guy and this article. That last part about my morals against theirs is about the only fallacy I see in this guys logic. I am really surprised that he answered so many personal attacks against him like that. Just as Chris stated, we could have used this guy and I think I will still try and contact him This could be a great angle, get an employment attorney to testify these statements and the truth, this is actually demonstrable solid evidence that the effects of the website is not just a consequence of a conviction but is directly related to the site.
Sex offenders labeled just like jews!!! Let the killing being! The Nazis of America are in full battle gear to blame all sex on anyone just to make money it all about money
That is okay what views you have Eric, this guy is just stating facts. Has nothing to do with your self image, sorry but in most cases it simply does not matter. Companies are liable if you re-offend on their job sites. Bottom line. No matter how he went about saying it, it is a fact that employers use in making determinations for and employee. I know first hand experience, I got fired immediately upon arrest from a company that I could have done anything else and they would never had got rid of me. Reality man…. It does absolutely help to have that attitude though. It does make a difference how you see yourself as to how you present yourself.
Based on the comments that we’ve sent, the original article writer responds with a new column. Hilarity ensues.
https://www.workforce.com/2019/05/23/defining-and-defending-my-role-as-an-attorney-more-on-the-employment-of-registered-sex-offenders/
This has been a beautiful debate people. Hopefully USA is reading this as he is always stating people cannot disagree without personally attacking one another. Well, here is a great debate pointing out that falsehood, and it is demonstrable evidence that all of us can have different opinions and still be civilized.
Anyways, I really like this statement,
“using the OSHA clause could go either way, e.g. protect the people from the person or the person from the people, because the law could go both ways depending on the situation.”
This is so true and just gives an employer another reason not to hire. This could also give us protection except for the fact that if it was us in front of a jury for damages or whatever, we would probably not get the same compensation as a non-offender would.
This is about the only statement that I have seen that has any counter relevance to the attorney,
“The original question was “Can a child molester be employed by the grocery store? I reported it to the manager, and showed proof and nothing was done about it.” I would think the answer would be “Yes he can. No law precludes him from working there unless on parole or probation and his PO forbids it,” or “No he cannot. Code Section XXXXX specifically precludes him from working there. Contact the police.””
But even this does not hold water as it is his legal obligation to advise his clients what the negative consequences of their actions may be if he is retained by them in just about anyway.. It would bean ethical violation if he did not advise this to his clients, bottom line. He could face reprimand or even disbarment if he did not, he could probably be held civilly liable for any event that happened if he did not advise, he could be disbarred even if he did not advise. I really like his response in that post article as well. He understands the ramifications of the registries and their fallacies, and the personal attacks, whether anyone see it or not, just make all of us appear to be uneducated imbeciles attacking in a misshapen and intolerably way like the masses that attack us. This does not help our cause one bit. I am not attacking anyone personally here either. I am just stating facts of how many educated individuals who read his articles are going top react to the comments sections. I could even very well be wrong, but I do not think so on this. He talks about criminal reform or something, none of us knows who this guy really is, maybe he has done great things for criminal reform or even sex offenders for all we know. Or he could just be another scumbag lawyer, we just do not know and the uninformed attacks are exactly what we face everyday.