home

Hawaii High Court: Can't Fire Solely for Past Conviction

By Jeralyn, Section Court Decisions
Posted on Fri Sep 01, 2006 at 09:08:51 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Some good news out of Hawaii today. The Hawaii Supreme Court has held that an employer can't fire an employee just because of a past criminal conviction. There must be a rational relationship between the conviction and the job duties.

The high court overturned a lower court decision Wednesday that threw out an anti-discrimination complaint filed by Jon S. Logan Wright in April 2004. In it he claimed the Kahului Home Depot fired him after a background check conducted more than a year after he began working revealed he had a 1996 Nevada drug conviction. In that case he served no jail time and was placed on probation, which ended in November 1997.

Logan had passed numerous drug tests showing he was clean.

Wright, in his appeal, had argued that he had passed three separate drug tests, including one when he was initially hired and that "in the spirit of the nondiscriminatory law, (Wright) has been rehabilitated and deserves a chance to work."

....At issue is state law that says employers may ask and consider a person's past criminal record relating to hiring, firing or the conditions of employment "provided that the conviction record bears a rational relationship to the duties an responsibilities of the position."

The opinion is available here.

< Abizaid: "The insurgency will go on long [after] we are gone" | It's Time to Start Talking About NSA Warrantless Surveillance >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Hawaii High Court: Can't Fire Solely for Past Conviction | 10 comments (10 topical)
    Re: Hawaii High Court: Can't Fire Solely for Past (none / 0) (#1)
    by roy on Fri Sep 01, 2006 at 09:32:32 AM EST
    Hooray! Down with freedom of association!

    Re: Hawaii High Court: Can't Fire Solely for Past (none / 0) (#3)
    by roy on Fri Sep 01, 2006 at 12:45:09 PM EST
    Since it's a slow comment day, I'll rebut myself: There really was no rational basis for firing him, since he'd been doing his job well for some time and proven himself clean with drug tests. And since he'd disclosed his conviction upon applying for the job, the firing reeks of arbitrariness. Also, Americans' right to free association is nowhere near as strong as our other famous rights, such as free speech and freedom of relgion. Also, corporations have no right to free association anyway. The court was right about the law, I just don't like the law.

    Re: Hawaii High Court: Can't Fire Solely for Past (none / 0) (#5)
    by Pete Guither on Fri Sep 01, 2006 at 02:10:57 PM EST
    Thanks for clearing that up, Roy. I was about to ask if you were a "corporate" libertarian (one whose pet libertarian issues mostly revolve around the rights of corporations rather than focusing on the rights of individuals). But I see you're not.

    Re: Hawaii High Court: Can't Fire Solely for Past (none / 0) (#6)
    by roy on Fri Sep 01, 2006 at 03:00:52 PM EST
    It's a blurry line, and maybe just semantics. Corporations don't have rights, but the individuals who make up a corporation do, and individuals shouldn't lose their rights just because they get organized. In this case, the individual owners of the corporation decided, through whatever (probably very indirect) mechanism the corporate charter provides, not to employ convicted drug offenders. If one person has the right to decide who to give his money to, who to allow onto his private property, who to allow to speak on his behalf, who to enter into a contract with, and who accept legal liability for, then so should a big collection of people. There's an important counter-argument based on the fact that individuals making up a corporation don't retain all their legal responsibilities when acting through the corp. That is, we don't imprison or even fine shareholders when corporations break the law. They're immunized from culpability when acting through the corp, so why should they retain all their rights when acting through the corp? I'm still mulling that one over.

    Re: Hawaii High Court: Can't Fire Solely for Past (none / 0) (#7)
    by roy on Fri Sep 01, 2006 at 03:09:29 PM EST
    And it's definately not a "pet" issue. Our government usually benefits corporations more than it hurts them; it's the little guy who's getting boned.

    Re: Hawaii High Court: Can't Fire Solely for Past (none / 0) (#2)
    by scarshapedstar on Fri Sep 01, 2006 at 04:36:36 PM EST
    Down with "rational relationships", is what Roy meant to say. And I agree 100%. For far too long our society has insisted that things happen for "reasons". What fun is that? You oughtta be able to fire people for, say, skin color, and invade countries with no rationale whatsoever. Hey, lookie, Roy's paradise is already halfway here!

    Re: Hawaii High Court: Can't Fire Solely for Past (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Sep 01, 2006 at 04:36:36 PM EST
    roy, you don't like the law because? that someone was convicted of a crime, years before, that has no rational relationship to the job at hand, has no material affect on job performance, and appears to have not ever been repeated, should be grounds for dismissal, is ok with you? i'd really like to hear your rationale for that, really.

    Re: Hawaii High Court: Can't Fire Solely for Past (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Sep 01, 2006 at 04:36:36 PM EST
    Ouch! I thought if we can fire someone for lying about their academic credentials, we certainly should be able to fire someone if they lie about a criminal conviction. May be they should it into the standard employment contract that you can be fired and sued for damages if you lie about criminal convictions.

    Re: Hawaii High Court: Can't Fire Solely for Past (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Sep 02, 2006 at 08:51:31 PM EST
    Well, this should have been a slam dunk based solely on the legal doctrine of equitable estoppel. Plus, there is no nexus between the prior crime and the current employment. Wanna bet that Home Depot's in-house lawyers radically change the employment application, REQUIRING the listing of prior convictions? At least in NYS, every job application I have ever seen requests info on whether the job applicant has ever been convicted of a crime, specifically a felony.

    Re: Hawaii High Court: Can't Fire Solely for Past (none / 0) (#10)
    by nathan on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 02:36:43 PM EST
    There is a bill (H.R 662) that is sponsored by Congressman Rangel (NY) that will allow for the expungement of records for non violent criminals, do you have any information on the status of this bill? what is you opinon on the bill?

    Hawaii High Court: Can't Fire Solely for Past Conviction | 10 comments (10 topical)