Lawsuit questions restrictions on health care jobs
Argues against life ban for former convicts
HARRISBURG — Five people with long-ago criminal convictions are challenging a state ban on their employment in nursing homes and other health care facilities.
One man was arrested 33 years ago, when he was 18, for taking a ride in a stolen vehicle. Another man was convicted of several crimes after becoming involved in a fight 35 years ago on a neighborhood basketball court. A woman, a licensed practical nurse, was convicted on a drug charge after allowing someone 17 years ago to sell drugs from her home.
Those records have prevented the petitioners from securing jobs in health care facilities and through home health care programs because of a state ban on hiring workers who have been convicted of any of a number of crimes, according to a lawsuit filed this month in Commonwealth Court.
In addition to violent crimes, such as homicide and rape, the list includes drug-related felonies and offenses such as theft and forgery.
Joining the disqualified employees in the lawsuit is Resources for Human Development, a Philadelphia-based non-profit social service organization that says the ban has prevented it from hiring and retaining the workers who can best serve its clients.
“We think we’re missing out on a large population of folks who have long since recovered from whatever issues might have been affecting them at the time,” said Dennis Roberts, associate director of Resources for Human Development. “They have gone through the rehabilitation steps to correct their lives. The punishment that they suffered as a result of their crime has long since passed.”
The lawsuit is not the first time the employment ban has been challenged in court. In 2000, a similar group of petitioners brought a case.
The provision was found unconstitutional, but only as applied to the petitioners in that suit, said Janet Ginzberg, senior staff attorney in the employment unit of Community Legal Services of Philadelphia, part of the legal team in the lawsuit.
“The thinking was that the Legislature would have to go and change it,” she said. “It didn’t.”
Despite a move by the Department of Aging to allow the employment of some people with a post-conviction work history, the ban is still enforced, Ms. Ginzberg said.
The new lawsuit asks the courts to stop the state from enforcing the lifetime employment ban for the named petitioners and for any similar people or organizations.
It names as respondents the state government as a whole, as well as the departments of human services, aging and health.
“This case is currently in litigation, but the administration understands the concerns of individuals who may have made mistakes in the past,” said Jeffrey Sheridan, spokesman for Gov. Tom Wolf. “The administration is also committed to protecting seniors from abuse and we believe that a balance can be achieved.”
As evidence that a lifetime employment restriction is excessive, the lawsuit offers a report from Kiminori Nakamura, an assistant professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of Maryland.
Mr. Nakamura reported that the likeliness someone will commit another crime declines with time, so that the risk falls below the risk of arrest for the general population after four to seven years for those who committed a violent crime, four years for those who committed a drug crime and three to four years for those who committed a crime involving property.
“Thus, for those who are concerned about the risks inherent in hiring people with criminal records, the value of criminal records in predicting future criminality diminishes with time and becomes virtually irrelevant after a maximum of no more than seven years for individuals with a single conviction, and no more than 10 years for those with multiple convictions — and even less time for individuals with non-violent offenses,” his report states.
In declarations that accompany the lawsuit, the petitioners explain the circumstances that have prevented them from obtaining the jobs they wish to have. Tyrone Peake, a 52-year-old resident of Philadelphia, says that he recently earned an associate’s degree and works 16 hours a week at Resources for Human Development, making $11 an hour.
He writes that his new degree would qualify him for full-time work in residential facilities, except for the fact that one night in 1982, when he was 18, he rode in a car that his friends had stolen. He was found guilty of attempted theft and sentenced to three years of probation.
“I had no problems while I was on probation, and decided at that time that I did not want to hang out with that crowd any more,” he states in his declaration. “I moved away to a different neighborhood, and have never been arrested or convicted of any other crimes in the 32 years since.”
Mr. Roberts, from Resources for Human Development, said he believes the ban was well-intended, and that his organization shares the goal of providing the best workforce. But he said they want to be able to use their judgment in determining which applicants meet that standard.
He noted that there are high levels of turnover in the jobs, which are not high-paying and can involve caring for others’ most basic needs.
“There are many individuals who have, they will tell you, ‘I messed up. I made an error,’ ” he said. “They are, in some instances, further motivated to give back, in a way, to help themselves address whatever crimes they might have committed.”