ILNews

Beyers: Law makes dishonesty legal on applications

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Commentary

By Bill Beyers

beyers-bill-mug Beyers

This year, the Legislature made it easier for persons with a criminal history to obtain employment. Under Ind. Code 35-38-8, a person can petition the sentencing court to restrict access to his or her arrest and conviction records to all but law enforcement for a Class D felony or misdemeanor conviction that did not result in personal injuries. The court’s order would apply to state law enforcement agencies, the Indiana Department of Corrections, and state criminal records repositories.

To qualify for restricted access, eight years must have passed since the completion of the sentence and the person must have received no interim felonies. Perhaps the most perplexing part of the law is that, once a court grants the petition, the person “may legally state on an application for employment or any other document that the person has not been arrested for or convicted of the felony or misdemeanor recorded in the restricted records.” I.C. 35-38-8-7.

The primary goals of I.C. 35-38-8 were to boost employment and prevent recidivism among persons with a prior conviction. Obviously, the Legislature was concerned that employers were using prior convictions as a screening tool and that existing law was not strong enough to deter this prohibited hiring practice. An example of a screening tool would be automatically excluding all applicants with a prior conviction. Additionally, the Legislature may have been concerned that potential applicants, because of their prior conviction, were no longer employable for certain types of positions based an employer’s selective policy. For example, a bank would likely exclude a bank teller applicant with a theft conviction. The difference between a screening tool and a selective policy excluding applicants with certain types of convictions is that the selective policy is based on a business necessity whereas a screening tool arbitrarily excludes applicants solely for their prior conviction without relating the nature of the conviction to the job duties.

Before this new law, a selective policy based on a business necessity would have been permissible, but an arbitrary screening policy would have been against Title VII.

In 1987, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued an opinion stating that employers could not use prior convictions as an absolute screening tool because it had a disparate impact among minorities; however, employers could consider the conviction if it related to a business necessity. Thus, this new law will not impose a new regulation on employers to prohibit them from using an arbitrary screening policy, but it will make it more difficult by restricting access to the conviction. Further, it may also undermine the employer’s interest in excluding applicants based on a business necessity.

In accordance with statutory interpretation principles, a court will attempt to construe I.C. 35-38-8-7 so that it has purpose and meaning. However, adding the protection of allowing applicants to legally lie on the application does not provide any more protection than applicants had before the law because most employment applications are not under oath. This begs the question of how a court may interpret this provision so that it has purpose and effect. Potentially, a court may interpret it as a new regulation on employers.

Simply put, if the applicant legally lies about a restricted conviction, the employer cannot terminate or refuse to hire the applicant based on that legal dishonesty. If interpreted in this manner, it may, in practice, impair employers from implementing a policy of discriminating against applicants based on a business necessity. Importantly, once the applicant restricts the conviction, the only way for the employer to learn of the conviction would be from the applicant. The Legislature apparently realized this and may have included I.C. 35-38-8-7 so that the applicant could lie with impunity whereas without this provision the applicant may have a much greater fear of being fired later for dishonesty. Interestingly, a strict interpretation of I.C. 35-38-8-7 may also allow the applicant to lie on a sworn application or “other documents.”

Until a court interprets I.C. 35-38-8-7, it will be difficult for attorneys to advise applicants as to whether they can lie to employers with impunity. Similarly, attorneys advising employers may have to caution their clients before terminating an employee for a “legal” lie because such action may result in a lawsuit for wrongful termination. Perhaps a better solution until the issue is resolved may be to adopt a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy where hiring managers do not ask about nonviolent felonies or misdemeanor convictions in the last eight years and the applicant does not volunteer that information. This way the applicant does not have to lie about a restricted offense, and a background check will reveal any unrestricted convictions so that the employer can make an appropriate and permissible decision.•

Bill Beyers graduated in 2009 from Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis and is an associate at Hume Smith Geddes Green & Simmons. The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Supreme Court Guidance
    The Supreme Court has instructed its trial courts and provided helpful practice pointers. See http://www.in.gov/judiciary/admin/pubs/trial-court/39-restrict-access.pdf

    Notably, the guide states that this new law is "an order restricting access [and] not the same as an expungement."
  • Law Not Understood
    In the present issue of this paper is a commentary stating that a law makes dishonesty legal.

    It may be that the writer does not understand the Law of Indiana as it applies to judgments in criminal cases.

    For many years there has been a provision of the Indiana Code that permits a Court to expunge a Court Record in certain situations. It is also possible to expunge a juvenile record, arrest record and other data.

    The statute cited has no bearing on lying or making it legal to lie. It is directed to the judgment entry of the trial Court.

    In the example set out by Mr. Beyers, a judgment was rendered on the date of a defendants' sentencing hearing.

    After eight years that defendant is allowed to file a petition under the new law. The Statute clearly expunges that record with the sole exception being the use by law enforcement.

    Under Indiana Law, if such a petition is granted, it would not be a lie to state on a job application that no prior arrest and conviction exists because it does not exist.

    The correct conclusion is that the Legislature has enabled a Court to alter the judgment in certain cases. Once it does so that judgment is altered wherein it no longer constitutes a criminal arrest or conviction---period.

    The fact that may confuse the writer is that law enforcement still has access to the historical record of the conviction. Of course that would be the case unless the Legislature wanted to alter a myriad of current statutes relating, inter alia, to habitual offender or substance abuse, license eligibility and so forth. It chose not to do that.

    The prospective employer has full access to the record made by any applicant but they do not have the power to alter a judgment issued
    by an Indiana Court. The Indiana Legislature has directed that only a trial court may do that.

    The focus here is not on a former conviction; rather it clearly is on the nature of a judgment in certain narrowly defined circumstances which is left to the discretion of a trial judge as to the existance of that verdict and judgment of criminal conviction.

    Once a Judge seals that record the Law of Indiana is that there exists no judgment of conviction or arrest and a statement to that effect is the truth.

    This situation is best handled by the sound discretion of a judge of competent jurisdiction and not a prospective employer or their attorney.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT