Ban the Box laws by jurisdiction
The Fair Chance matrix SafestHires operates from. Sixteen states, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and twenty-plus cities and counties — with the timing trigger, threshold, and post-offer obligations for each.
State-level Fair Chance laws
| State | Statute | Inquiry stage | Key obligation |
|---|---|---|---|
| California | Statewide Fair Chance Act (Gov. Code §12952) | Conditional offer | Individualized assessment + 5-day notice + 2nd 5-day notice |
| Colorado | Chance to Compete Act (CRS 8-2-130) | Application | No conviction questions on initial application |
| Connecticut | P.A. 16-83 | Application | Erased/pardoned records cannot be considered |
| DC | Fair Criminal Record Screening Amendment | Conditional offer | 10-yr conviction lookback cap + business-necessity factors |
| Hawaii | HRS §378-2.5 | Conditional offer | Tightest lookback (5/10 yr) in the country |
| Illinois | Job Opportunities for Qualified Applicants Act | Interview / conditional offer | Pre-adverse + 5 business-day response window |
| Maryland | Md. Code Lab. & Empl. §5-1301 | Application (15+ employees) | Cannot inquire before in-person interview |
| Massachusetts | M.G.L. c. 151B §4 | Application | Cannot ask about arrests, first convictions for misdemeanors, sealed/expunged |
| Minnesota | Minn. Stat. §364.021 | Interview / conditional offer | No private-employer ban prior; applies statewide since 2014 |
| New Jersey | Opportunity to Compete Act | Application | First-position rule — no published-ad references to clean record |
| New Mexico | Criminal Offender Employment Act | Application | Conviction inquiry only after interview |
| New York | Article 23-A + NYC FCA | Application (statewide) / Conditional offer (NYC) | Eight-factor 23-A analysis required, documented |
| Oregon | ORS 659A.360 | Interview | Cannot consider arrests not leading to conviction |
| Rhode Island | R.I. Gen. Laws §28-5-7 | Interview | Statewide private-employer rule |
| Vermont | 21 V.S.A. §495j | Interview / conditional offer | Exceptions only where federal law mandates inquiry |
| Washington | RCW 49.94 | Initial screening | Cannot reject solely on record without considering rehabilitation |
City and county ordinances we monitor
SafestHires tracks municipal ordinances that frequently catch multi-state employers by surprise — the obligations stack on top of the state rule above. If you operate in any of these jurisdictions, your consent form, adverse-action template, and ATS knock-out logic need to be tuned for each one.
- Austin, TX (private employers, 15+)
- Baltimore, MD (10+ employees)
- Buffalo, NY
- Chicago, IL (15+)
- Columbia, MO
- District of Columbia (DC)
- Kansas City, MO
- Los Angeles, CA (10+)
- Montgomery County, MD
- New York City, NY (Fair Chance Act 2.0)
- Philadelphia, PA
- Portland, OR (6+)
- Prince George's County, MD
- Rochester, NY
- San Francisco, CA (Fair Chance Ordinance)
- Seattle, WA (Fair Chance Employment Ordinance)
- St. Louis, MO
- Spokane, WA
- U.S. Virgin Islands
- Waterloo, IA
- Westchester County, NY
How SafestHires applies the matrix
Every order routed through the SafestHires platform inherits the Fair Chance rules of the candidate's work location and the employer's hiring location. The rule with the most candidate-protective timing wins. We surface the individualized-assessment worksheet inside the report so the requester can document the §23-A or §12952 analysis without leaving the platform.