National News
The ban that blocks those with criminal records from working with elderly is unconstitutional
January 04, 2016 posted by Steve Brownstein
A state law that bars people with many types of criminal records from working with senior citizens is unconstitutional, a Commonwealth Court panel ruled Wednesday.
That lifetime employment prohibition is far too broad, and gives those affected by it no real means of appeal, the judges found.
They reached that conclusion in siding with Philadelphia-based Resources for Human Development Inc., a non-profit social services provider, and five people who have criminal convictions that barred them from working with the elderly. Those petitioners challenged the employment prohibition in the state's Older Adults Protective Services Act.
The ban, approved by the Legislature in 1997, applies to anyone who has ever been convicted of a crime ranging from murder, to rape and other sex offenses, robbery, burglary, child endangerment and corruption of minors. It doesn't take into account if the person has reformed and would be a suited for a job in a nursing home, adult day care center or with an in-home care provider, Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt noted in the state court's opinion.
According to court filings, one of the petitioners, a 52-year-old man, is subject to the ban because he was caught riding with friends in a stolen car when he was 18. Another, a 60-year-old nurse, had a disqualifying drug possession conviction dating from 1998. A 30-year-old robbery conviction subjected a 55-year-old cook to the ban. The other two petitioners had theft and and bad check convictions in the 1990s.
Under the 1997 rule, elder care firms had to fire anyone with less than a year on the job as of July 1, 1998, if any of the disqualifying crimes showed up on a mandatory criminal background check. Those with longer work records could stay employed, but could not be hired by any other facilities.
Leavitt noted that her court and the state Superior Court have previously found no justification for that disparate rule. Yet the Legislature has not amended the lifetime ban provision or the July 1998 cut-off, she wrote.
Resources for Human Development and the other five petitioners argued that the ban violates the state constitution's prohibition on laws that "unreasonably and arbitrarily" exclude people from lawful employment. It also violates their equal protection rights, they contended, and their right to due process of law.
Leavitt found that "it defies logic" to presume every person convicted of a crime is forever unfit to work with seniors. Facilities affected by the law "should not be required to employ a person with a criminal record, but they should have the opportunity to assess the situation and exercise their discretion to employ an applicant found to be sufficiently rehabilitated and a good fit for the job," she wrote.
