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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more