The Impact of a Criminal Record on Employment in Hawaii

Getting a job with a criminal record can be really hard. Especially in Hawaii. There’s a few reasons for this. First, Hawaii’s economy relies a lot on tourism. So many jobs involve working with customers and tourists. Employers worry someone with a record might scare away business. Second, Hawaii is a small community. Word gets around about people’s past. Third, Hawaii’s laws don’t offer much protection for people with records trying to work.

There’s a few laws in Hawaii that make it hard for people with felonies to get work. One is the Uniform Employment Selection Criteria law. This says employers can deny jobs to anyone convicted of a felony in the last 10 years. The law doesn’t require employers to look at the facts of each case. They can just blanket deny anyone with a felony. Another law is Hawaii Revised Statutes 831-3.1. This says state and county agencies can deny jobs to people with felony convictions indefinitely. They don’t have to consider how long ago the crime happened. So these laws allow denying jobs without looking at rehabilitation.

There’s also no “ban the box” law in Hawaii yet. This means employers can ask about criminal records right away on job applications. They don’t have to wait until later in the hiring process. This allows them to weed people out immediately just based on checking “yes” on the conviction question. Studies show just asking the question makes employers less likely to call someone back. Hawaii also has no law limiting what employers can ask about records. In some states, they can only ask about recent or job-related convictions. But Hawaii lets employers ask for full details.

The Court’s View

Courts in Hawaii have upheld employers’ broad authority to deny jobs based on criminal records. For example, in Furukawa v. Honolulu Zoological Society, the court ruled a zoo could refuse to hire someone with any conviction. It said denying jobs to ex-offenders encouraged rehabilitation. Also in Ross v. Stouffer Hotel Company, the court ruled a hotel chain could have a policy of not hiring anyone with a conviction. It said this protected the image of the company. These cases show the courts support employer discretion in considering criminal records.

Pros and Cons

Supporters of Hawaii’s laws say it’s good business sense for employers to be careful. Tourism is the backbone of the economy. Customers might get scared off if they know staff have criminal pasts. Being super cautious protects the industry. Also, some see it as motivating people to avoid crime. If they know records will hurt job chances, people may think twice before committing crimes.

Critics argue the laws go too far. They punish people long after serving sentences. This makes it really hard for folks with records to move on and be productive. It increases the chance they re-offend. Also, the laws let employers discriminate without checking facts. A minor crime years ago can cost someone a job today. Critics say Hawaii’s approach hurts public safety and the economy in the long run.

Possible Defenses

There are some limited defenses people with records can try under Hawaii law. One is arguing the employer violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This bars discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. For example, if an employer rejects all black applicants with felonies, but hires white felons, that’s potential discrimination. Another defense is disability discrimination if the conviction was linked to a disability. Employers have to provide reasonable accommodation for disabilities.

However, these defenses are hard to prove and still allow most blanket no-felon policies. For real change, Hawaii may need to pass laws like ban the box, limit what employers can ask, and require considering rehabilitation. For now, people with records face an uphill battle getting hired in Hawaii.

Conclusion

Hawaii’s economy and culture make employers very reluctant to hire people with criminal records. The state’s laws give wide latitude to deny jobs without considering circumstances. While this may protect tourism and discourage crime, it also makes rehabilitation very difficult. People with records face major obstacles to employment even long after serving sentences. However, with growing research on effective policies, Hawaii has opportunities to ease barriers while still protecting business interests.

References

Uniform Employment Selection Criteria, HRS § 378-2.5. (2022). https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol07_Ch0346-0398/HRS0378/HRS_0378-0002_0005.htm

Disqualification of Convicted Persons, HRS § 831-3.1. (2022). https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol16_Ch0801-0853/HRS0831/HRS_0831-0003_0001.htm

Rodriguez, M. & Avery, B. (2018). Ban the Box in Hawaii. https://www.nelp.org/publication/ban-the-box-in-hawaii/

Lageson, S.E., Vuolo, M., & Uggen, C. (2015). Legal Ambiguity in Managerial Assessments of Criminal Records. Law & Social Inquiry, 40(1), 175-204. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1111/lsi.12066

Furukawa v. Honolulu Zoological Society, 85 Haw. 7 (App. 1996). https://law.justia.com/cases/hawaii/supreme-court/1996/17673-1.html

Ross v. Stouffer Hotel Company Inc., 76 Haw. 454, 879 P.2d 1037 (1994). https://law.justia.com/cases/hawaii/supreme-court/1994/15710-1.html

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. (1964). https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-1964