To enact section 4113.86 of the Revised Code to prohibit private employers from including on an employment application any question concerning the criminal background of the applicant.
SB 143 would create a new section of the Ohio Revised Code restricting how private employers may ask about and use criminal history in hiring. The bill prohibits employers with five or more employees from including criminal-background questions on initial job applications, from considering certain criminal-history information at that stage, and from using arrest records not followed by conviction or participation in diversion programs as disqualifying information. It also preserves an employer’s ability to conduct a criminal background check, but limits how that information may be used.
The bill requires an employer that is considering denying employment because of criminal history to make an individualized assessment based on the nature and gravity of the offense, the time elapsed, and the nature of the job. If the employer makes a preliminary decision to reject the applicant, it must provide written notice, identify the disqualifying conviction(s), provide the background check if available, and give the applicant at least five days to respond with evidence challenging the report or showing rehabilitation or mitigating circumstances. If the denial becomes final, the employer must notify the applicant of the final decision, any internal appeal or reconsideration process, and the applicant’s right to file a complaint with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission.
The bill would affect private employers in Ohio, while excluding state agencies and political subdivisions from its definition of employer. It also does not apply where federal, state, or local law requires a criminal background check or requires employment restrictions based on criminal history. A violation of the bill’s application-screening restrictions would be treated as an unlawful discriminatory practice under Ohio’s employment discrimination laws, allowing an injured applicant to pursue a complaint through the Ohio Civil Rights Commission.
Overall, the bill appears aimed at reducing barriers to employment for people with criminal records and aligning hiring practices with “fair chance” or “ban the box” policies. Because there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided material, there is no documented debate or formal vote history to show broader legislative sentiment. Based on the bill’s structure, the measure is framed as a civil-rights and workforce-access proposal rather than a punitive regulatory change.
SB 143 would add a new employment-law restriction to Ohio’s Revised Code governing private employers’ use of criminal history in hiring. It would prohibit criminal-history questions on initial applications, require individualized review before adverse action based on criminal background, and create notice-and-response procedures before a final denial. It would also make violations an unlawful discriminatory practice enforceable through the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, thereby expanding potential remedies for applicants and imposing new compliance obligations on covered employers.
The available record does not include committee testimony or vote tallies, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from lawmakers or stakeholders. The bill’s text suggests a generally reform-oriented, applicant-protective approach consistent with fair-chance hiring policies. In the absence of recorded debate, the sentiment can only be characterized as neutral-to-supportive in design, with the measure presented as an anti-discrimination and workforce-entry bill.
The main points of contention likely concern the balance between second-chance hiring and employer discretion. Supporters would likely emphasize reducing unnecessary barriers for applicants with criminal records, limiting reliance on arrests or diversion participation, and ensuring individualized review rather than blanket exclusion. Opponents or cautious stakeholders may focus on administrative burden, the five-day response process, potential liability exposure, and whether the restrictions could limit employers’ ability to screen for workplace safety or trust-sensitive positions. The bill partially addresses those concerns by allowing background checks, individualized assessments, and exceptions where other laws require criminal screening.