Employment practice, unlawful to inquire from job applicant information relating to arrests or conviction of crimes, criminal record, with exceptions
SB49 would create a “ban-the-box” style hiring rule for the State of Alabama, its agencies, and its political subdivisions. Under the bill, public employers could not ask about or consider an applicant’s arrest or conviction history until after making a conditional job offer, and job applications could not include questions about conviction history. The bill also bars use of certain records in hiring decisions, including arrests not followed by conviction, sealed/dismissed/expunged convictions, and minor infractions or misdemeanors that cannot result in jail time.
The bill allows a prior conviction to be considered only if it is directly related to the job, and it lists factors for that determination, such as the relationship between the offense and the duties of the position, the possibility of similar misconduct, and how much time has passed since the offense. It also preserves compliance with other state and federal laws, and it exempts certain positions and employers, including jobs requiring a fidelity bond in some circumstances, certain Alabama Securities Commission and Banking Department personnel, and law enforcement agencies. If an applicant is denied based on conviction history, the employer must provide written notice identifying the convictions relied upon and a copy of the conviction history report, if any.
SB49 would amend state hiring practices by restricting when and how public employers may inquire into criminal history, creating confidentiality rules for background-check information, and imposing recordkeeping and reporting duties on public employers. It would also give the Department of Workforce enforcement authority, including complaint handling, periodic compliance reviews, annual audits, and access to hiring records. The bill would apply to state government, agencies, and political subdivisions, and it would take precedence over conflicting state rules governing employment decisions based on convictions, subject to existing federal and state legal requirements and specified exemptions.
The bill’s stated purpose is strongly rehabilitative and pro-employment, emphasizing reduced barriers for people with criminal records, lower recidivism, and improved economic stability. The available context shows no recorded committee debate or votes, so there is no documented opposition or support in the provided materials beyond the bill’s own findings and structure. The fact that the bill was later indefinitely postponed suggests it did not advance, but the record provided does not explain why.
The main points of potential contention are the limits on public employers’ ability to screen applicants early in the hiring process and the bill’s override of other rules unless a conviction is directly related to the job. Employers may also view the recordkeeping, survey, audit, and reporting requirements as burdensome. On the other hand, supporters would likely emphasize fair-chance hiring, confidentiality, and reduced discrimination against people with criminal records. The exemptions for law enforcement, certain financial-regulatory personnel, and bond-required positions indicate an effort to balance rehabilitation goals with public safety and security concerns.