City committee advances revisions to Philadelphia’s Fair Chance Hiring law; administration seeks more time

The Philadelphia City Council Public Safety Committee advanced amendments to the city’s Fair Chance Hiring law (Bill 250,373) after a full day of testimony from legal aid groups, reentry organizations, employers and the City’s administration.

Councilmember Rue Landau, sponsor of the amendments, said the bill updates Philadelphia’s pioneering 2011 fair-chance law to reflect current research and practices. Landau told the committee Philadelphia has “always been a city that believes in second chances” and said the changes would help employers do individualized assessments while giving applicants clearer notice and a straightforward way to show rehabilitation.

What the amendment does: The version before the committee shortens the look-back period for certain misdemeanor convictions (amended from an earlier draft), narrows the class of employers who must provide a written notice to applicants (applying the requirement only to employers with more than 10 employees), replaces a free-form narrative obligation with a structured four-question template for employers, and removes a newly proposed immediate private right of action. Landau said the final ordinance would take effect 90 days after adoption to allow employers and the administration to prepare.

Administration concerns and support: Camille Duchasse, the city’s Chief Administrative Officer, testified the administration “strenuously support[s]” stronger protections for justice-impacted job seekers but asked that the bill be held temporarily so staff and stakeholders could refine language to avoid unintended effects on employers and on the populations the law is meant to help. Duchasse said the administration would continue to work with the sponsor on narrower drafting.

Advocates and employers: Community Legal Services, the Defender Association, the Youth Sentencing and Reentry Project and other providers urged passage, saying the amendments would reduce barriers to employment for people with records and help public safety by lowering recidivism risk. Jamie Gullen of Community Legal Services said shortening the look-back period and clarifying the individualized assessment would ‘‘allow people with records to be able to show their experiences, qualifications and other positive attributes.’’

Several employers and business groups testified in support but also asked for workable, administrable rules. The Chamber of Commerce said it backed the policy’s goals but cautioned that a narrative requirement and a very low burden of proof for retaliation claims could deter small and mid-size employers from hiring justice-impacted people. Chamber witnesses urged a standardized form and a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard for retaliation claims, and asked to preserve the ability to consider driving-related summary offenses when they are material to a job.

Public comment and lived experience: Dozens of witnesses — including formerly incarcerated residents, reentry-service providers and local employers that hire returning citizens — told personal stories about how criminal records block jobs, housing and stable futures. Several employers said fair-chance hiring had improved staff retention and allowed firms to maintain service levels after the pandemic.

Committee action: Committee members adopted an amendment and then voted to report Bill 250,373, as amended, with a favorable recommendation and to ask suspension of Council rules to permit first reading at the next Council session. The administration and sponsor agreed to continue negotiations on technical points even as the committee advanced the measure.

Why it matters: Supporters said the clarified process will help employers evaluate job-related risk while giving applicants clear, consistent rights and a practicable way to present rehabilitation evidence. Opponents or cautious witnesses warned that drafting choices — especially around notice, retaliation standards and which records employers may consider — can shape whether the law encourages or chills employer participation.