Skip to main content

Ban the Box Ordinance Set to Take Effect in St. Louis In January

 

Beginning January 1, 2021, a new Ban the Box ordinance will take effect for many employers in St. Louis.

Earlier this year, St. Louis approved Ordinance 71074 which will apply to employers in the city with 10 or more employees.  Under this ordinance, these employers cannot base a decision to hire or promote an employee based upon an applicant’s criminal history, “unless the employer can demonstrate that the employment related decision is based on all information available including the frequency, recentness and severity of the criminal history and the history is reasonably related to or bears upon the duties and responsibilities of the job position.”  As well, these employers are also prohibited from asking about a job applicant’s criminal history until after the employer has determined the applicant is otherwise qualified for the position and interviewed the applicant.  However, employers may inquire about “all job applicants who are in the final selection pool from which the position will be filled.”

Employers are also prohibited from publishing job advertisements that exclude applicants on the basis of criminal history as well as prohibited from including statements on job applications (or other hiring forms) that exclude applicants on the basis of criminal history.

While January 1st is still a few months off, for those employers in St. Louis that fall within the scope of Ordinance 71074, I would suggest you start taking steps to ensure compliance.


For a copy of Ordinance 71074:  https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/internal-apps/legislative/upload/Ordinances/BOAPdf/71074%20Combined.pdf

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