Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the S.B. 143 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
NFIB, Ohio Chamber tell committee S.B. 143's ban‑the‑box plus mandated process would burden small employers
Summary
Witnesses from NFIB and the Ohio Chamber opposed S.B. 143 at a third hearing, saying the bill's ban‑the‑box rule for businesses with five or more employees and its required multi‑step interactive process would impose new administrative costs and legal exposure on small employers, potentially chilling second‑chance hiring.
Jared Weiser, state director of the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) in Ohio, told the Senate Workforce Development Committee at a third hearing that NFIB opposes Senate Bill 143 because it would prohibit businesses with five or more employees from asking about criminal history on initial job applications and would impose a prescriptive, multi‑step compliance process that increases liability for small employers.
"We strongly oppose government mandated, one‑size‑fits‑all approaches like those found in Senate Bill 143," Weiser said. He described NFIB members as largely small employers (the testimony said the association's average member has 20 or fewer employees) and said the association supports second‑chance hiring but not statutory mandates that remove employer flexibility.
Weiser and later Kevin Shimp, testifying for the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, said the bill goes beyond a simple "ban the box" and requires individualized assessments of conviction history, preliminary written notices that identify disqualifying convictions, delivery of the background check to the applicant, an opportunity for a written response, and a final written denial if the employer decides not to hire. Both witnesses warned those written steps create evidence that may support future litigation and said the bill lacks statutory employer protections for negligent hiring or supervision.
Committee members asked about the employee‑count threshold in the bill; witnesses said a higher threshold (examples discussed ranged up to 100 or more employees) would make the measure more palatable to small employers and that NFIB and the Chamber were open to conversations about tailored approaches, employer protections and incentives to encourage second‑chance hiring.
Senators also noted existing second‑chance hiring efforts by some employers; witnesses cited examples and said the bill's mandatory interactive process could have a chilling effect on such programs unless balanced by liability protections or other incentives.
The Legislative Service Commission (LSC) raised a procedural question to the committee about whether the bill, as written, would permit asking about arrests without conviction during a later interview; the chair said the committee will continue to examine that issue. The committee recorded S.B. 143 as having its third hearing; no vote was taken.
