Skip to main content

Can an Employer Rescind a Job Offer Based Upon an Applicant's Prior Convictions? You Betcha (As Long as There is a Rational Relationship...)


Williamson v. Lowe's - United States District Court for the District of Hawaii


Facts:  In early 2011, Gregory Williamson applied for a position with Lowe's as a "receiver/stocker".  After multiple interviews, he accepted a position, contingent upon passing a drug test and background check.  In response to a form he was required to fill out, Williamson stated he had a felony conviction "previously discussed" during an interview for the position.  

Shortly thereafter, Lowe's sent Williamson a letter and stated that information found in the consumer report could adversely affect Williamson's employment status.  The consumer report identified several convictions, beyond the one he had identified.  Williamson was given an opportunity to dispute the information in the consumer report, but failed to act.  Lowe's then left him a voicemail and stated he would not be hired because of his felony criminal record.  A subsequent letter was sent as well which stated Lowe's would not offer him the position "based in whole or in part" on information in the consumer report. 

Williamson subsequently filed a suit against Lowe's and alleged violations of section 378-2 of Hawaii Revised Statues.  Lowe's then moved for summary judgment on Williamson's claims.

Holding:  The District Court noted that while the text of section 378-2 of Hawaii Revised Statute states that it is unlawful for "any employer to refused to hire or employ" any individual because of the individual's "arrest and court record", Section 378-2.5 permits an employer to "inquire about and consider an individual's criminal conviction record concerning hiring...provided that the conviction record bears a rational relationship to the duties and responsibilities of the position."  

The Court agreed with Lowe's and held that Lowe's lawfully considered Williamson's convictions when the decision was made not to hire him.  In this instance, Williamson applied for a position that involved working in various departments and required team work.  However, based upon the prior convictions, Lowe's had misgivings that Williamson could effectively work in the position.  Consequently, the Court held that a rational relationship existed between the convictions and the duties of the position. 

Judgment:  The District Court of Hawaii granted Lowe's summary judgment on the grounds that Williamson's prior convictions were lawfully considered by Lowe's in its decision not to hire him, and recognized a rational relationship existed between the convictions and the duties of the position applied for.  

The Takeway:  This is a ruling that employers should pay close attention to, if for no other reason than to ensure due diligence is given to the entire hiring process before a decision is made.  In this instance, after Lowe's obtained permission from the applicant to do a background check, potentially harmful convictions were discovered.  Rather than jumping to a rash conclusion, Lowe's gave the applicant an opportunity to contest the results from the background check.  Even after the applicant failed to contest the results, Lowe's ensured that it showed a rational relationship existed between the assault convictions and the requirements of the job.  Since Williamson had several assault convictions, and the position he was to be hired for involved working closely with others in a team environment, Lowe's made the determination not to hire him because of concerns over his ability to effectively work in the position.  

Even though this brought about a lawsuit (no surprise there), Lowe's did the right thing by following the law and having appropriate documentation in place to back itself up.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Mollway

Date:  February 4, 2015


Opinion:  http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/hawaii/hidce/1:2014cv00025/114217/38

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more