California sued the Ralphs supermarket chain on Thursday, alleging that it violated state law by asking job-seekers whether they had criminal records and illegally rejecting hundreds of applicants.
The California Civil Rights Department contends that Ralphs Grocery Co. “has ignored and continues to ignore” the Fair Chance Act “by screening out otherwise qualified applicants on the basis of criminal histories that do not have any adverse relationship with the duties of the job for which they were applying,” according to a departmental press statement.
The law, which took effect in 2018, was designed to reduce the chance of ex-convicts reoffending by giving them opportunities to earn a living.
In general, employers with five or more workers can’t ask applicants about their criminal histories before making job offers, and must follow specific procedures for rejecting them. The law says employers can’t rescind a job offer if the applicant’s conviction, which could be for a misdemeanor, wouldn’t directly affect job responsibilities.
Instead, Ralphs job-seekers were given what the suit calls a “confusing and misleading” application form that included questions seeking disclosure of their criminal histories. Most candidates who had their job offers revoked weren’t given any way to contact Ralphs to challenge the decision as the law requires, the statement said.
“The instructions provide detailed, superfluous instructions concerning how to report convictions, after telling applicants that they do not need to answer the question. Additionally, by suggesting specific convictions that should not be reported in California, the instructions necessarily suggest that other convictions should be reported,” the lawsuit contends.
FFS, Ralph’s, you are a grocery store chain … not a bank or other fiduciary, not a hospital or other medical provider, and certainly not a school or other child care provider. 🙄😒
Start serving the community you so willingly sell to! 😖
This suit proves that the state regulators need to start hanging some corporate executives by the balls for such blatant disregard. The problem here is that the corporation will pay any fines and/or damages ordered by the court, not the executives themselves. I think it would perhaps be better if it were a felony to break this law for both the corporation and the person who made the decision to do so and the individuals would have to pay for the crime with their own money and possibly their freedom. Some laws are that important and this one certainly is.
Hey…there are so many companies doing it.
Please see below. It is a copy/paste directly from a current Indeed ad from FedEx. I have starting to put together a list of companies that ask about felonies, etc., and do not follow the Ban the Box guidelines. I am struggling to find employment and find it so very depressing/hopeless.
“● Background check / No Felonies”
Hhhmmmh. It says “The law, which took effect in 2018, was designed to reduce the chance of ex-convicts reoffending by giving them opportunities to earn a living.”. So why do they not want PFRs to find gainful employment? Double standard and BS as usual.
“by screening out otherwise qualified applicants on the basis of criminal histories that do not have any adverse relationship with the duties of the job for which they were applying,” That sentence by itself make this whole thing meaningless to myself & any other person that is on the registry. No matter the job , & especially one where a person works with the public & children can be present will always be exempted from following even well meaning legislation. The inherent bias is so entrenched that as a Californian I cannot even serve on a jury. Even convicted murderers are eligible to serve once off parole.
Way to go there Ralphie Boy!
This could have wide ranging implications given Ralph’s is part of a larger grocery store conglomerate across the country and its impact in other states could be felt when it comes to applicants who have legal histories which could preclude them from employment with the master brand.
It doesn’t matter if you have to register they make you list place of employment and then drive by and talk to the employer if you have to register this lawsuit and the 2018 law are moot
The same state that still uses the Sex Offense Registry and the Static-99R to discriminate against gay people. California is a Fake Personality.
The law goes even further CAGOV code if the applicant has a COR sex offender or not the employer can not consider the conviction . Moreover, the employer can’t even suggest or ask for or do a risk assessment on the applicant. This section is an addition to the fair credit act provisions .
Employed PFRs VS Unemployed PFRs
Who committed more crimes? My guess, chronically unemployed PFRs commit way more, especially if they are homeless. More new SOs? Maybe, maybe not, but crimes in general, hell yes!
Quantify that chronically unemployed, PFRs can and will be more law abiding if employed and housed. That barriers to either promotes crime. The same as with absolute everybody else?
As a chronically unemployed, formerly homeless PFR… I think there could be something to that. My behaviors changed ever so slightly when I was housed. New SO was never in the cards for me, but some other things that I used to do when homeless, also went away.
Good idea, or just ignored? Makes things worse?
Interesting side note? Shoplifting in LA, max 30 days away from my tent. Never had to do that, but I did convert 45 days of Community Labor to a 45 day jail sentence…. and was back on the street 23.5 hours later. Yep, less than 1 day later. Oh that 23.5 hours includes surrendering at the courthouse, being move to the jail, and going through the 4+ hour release process.
Did more time waiting, by myself, in a holding tank at the courthouse, and waiting, by myself in a release tank, than I did anywhere else. Never made it all the way through intake processing, before they cut me loose. Worse part, they didn’t let me keep the shoes… Oh and the tank at the courthouse was flooded with raw sewage… Which is why I wanted to keep the jail shoes.