Miya’s Law clears second Senate hurdle
The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Environment & General Government unanimously passed a bill (SB 898), known as “Miya’s Law,” aimed at improving tenant safety in apartment buildings by requiring background screenings for employees. The background screening must include a national screening of criminal history records and sexual predator and sexual offender registries. The screening would specifically include criminal offenses involving violence or a disregard for the safety of others, and allow a landlord to disqualify individuals with criminal records from employment.
Typo/error. You write “for employees”. I think you mean “for renters.”
no typo
Cool cool… I’m sure it included a provision to provide necessary housing for those who get rejected once they are discovered to meet any of the disqualifying convictions… right… right?
I thought apt managers already screened their employees. Is this something new?
Most do that anyway. Heck when I tried finding an apartment 20 years ago they did a background check on me and denied my application. And the case above involved 2 workers for the apartment complex, not just a resident. One Miya worked in the office and the guy who killed her was a maintenance worker. He will never have to register as he took his own life.
“The prime suspect in her disappearance, the complex’s 27-year-old maintenance man Armando Manuel Caballero, was found dead from a suspected suicide just three days later.”
If you are on a registry stemming from public information, then you are a person with a sex conviction and holding a conviction against someone for the purposes of denying them employment is illegal…not saying people don’t do it, but they are not supposed to.
Unfortunately, in most states (including Florida), denying someone employment based on a criminal conviction is not illegal. In fact, in Florida, in many cases employers (especially the government) are required to refuse employment to those with certain felony convictions. There are also many professions that require state-issued professional licenses (including skilled trades like plumbing and electrician), which are denied by the state to those with felony convictions who have not had their civil rights restored.
RM
12 years ago I got a CDL license and passed it with 100%, not a single wrong answer. The Drivers license supervisor accused me of cheating so I had to take it a 2nd time. They tried to say I had to come back and I refused. So the supervisor took me in the back after they closed and had 3 employees and herself quiz me from the CDL book. I still passed but think I missed one question that time so I got my license.
Not sure about now but back then, the Sex offender statue was in the same spot where the CDL went on your license. When I got the license at the time, it did not have the Statue # instead it said CDL. I am sure they have since corrected that with the new licenses. I did not renew the CDL after the business closed down and have not worked since.
RM
You are correct. Kansas City s Mayor who just happens to be black a few years ago sponsored legislation that made it illegal to refuse employment because of a previous conviction , and even illegal to ask on a questionnaire about previous criminal convictions.
He is very level headed and very well liked.
If it weren’t for that you bet they would discriminate.
@RM
See my reply below to @Cherokee Jack. I address your point there, but do agree with you.
TS
You can refuse to hire someone based on (Read ALL before judging me)
Sexual orientation
Race
Religion
Male/female (I got caught in that one when I couldn’t join the Supremes)
And any other reason. Want to know how they do that?
All kidding aside here is the real way it is done.
“Sorry Mister / Misses Johnson, we went with a more experienced applicant but please feel free to apply again in the future”.
Very pleasant, professional and not illegal. You would have to prove with substantial documented proof that you were not hired due to discrimination and that is not as easy as you think.
Now if 50 black people applied at a factory that had 100 workers and ALL were white and there were 5 openings and they refused all 50 black people, they have some major explaining to do.
@Cherokee
I agree with you. However, there are job requirements, e.g. no felony convictions allowed because of the nature of the position or the need for a license while in it (which you probably cannot get with a conviction), then there is out right discriminating because of a felony conviction when there was nothing in the job description that said nothing about having no convictions being required.
One has to prove there was discrimination involved WRT a conviction being the deciding factor (as you adroitly noted). It does happen though it should not if convictions were not listed as a barrier to begin with. As one who had it held against me and told to me by the company who wanted to hire me, but could not because of their insurance carrier, the road is paved with potholes that should be reconsidered being paved over.
Why doesn’t FAC along with other organizations and the ACLU formulate and push laws having to do with SO that actually accomplish something productive without waisting money on nothing laws that are basically unconstitutional and useless. Laws that would expose registry laws for what they are and override them making them easier to dispose of.
It seems law makers are anxious to pass laws but never willing to get rid of mistakes.
It takes a legislator to sponsor a bill.
I was a state licensed professional with advanced degrees in my field. I had current, positive letters of recommendation from my former employer, despite having been terminated upon my arrest and conviction. I worked hard to maintain my licensing requirements while I was incarcerated and came out with all my credentials intact. It had required filing several grievances with FDOC and the intervention of the local state representative from my home county.
About 90 days after being released I received a letter from a recruiter about a position with a local government in south Florida. I applied and was asked to come down and interview.
I went to the interview that was extensive and professionally comprehensive. We even talked about compensation amounts and agreed on a salary that I’d receive if I were selected. At the end of the 8 hour interview process when they always ask “is there anything else you’d like to discuss” I very openly and thoroughly talked about my legal situation and my medical issues that restricted me from some job tasks. The committee said that they weren’t things that couldn’t be worked with or accommodated. I almost laughed when the representative from Human Resources on the interview committee seemed to want to slide under the table.
When the interview process was completed I walked out with a couple of the folks from the Utility Administration and they openly talked about how impressed they were with the interview. Again, I talked about my legal situation and the requirements of my probation and sex offender statutes. They all said that they understood but that they wouldn’t have an issue with that.
About 2 1/2 weeks later I received a letter offering me the position. I even got several calls from my supposed future coworkers and even my future boss saying they looked forward to working with me. I responded immediately that I accepted the offer and began to make plans to relocate. With the employment letter in hand probation (here and down south) immediately approved the move as I was able to secure a place to live in a neighboring county than was approved by all parties. Even the judge that had to approve it responded with in several hours with a very positive letter of approval. I actually contacted my future employer and received a waiver of the county residency requirements.
The day after I had everything approved and had set up the move (within the next 2 days) I received a letter from Human Resources rescinding the job offer as my background check had revealed (“disqualifying issue”)….. tried to contact the folks involved down there, even my PO here tried but nobody would even take our calls. I had also received employment offers from several private utility companies but was unable to pass the qualification physical. These people gladly took my calls afterwards and openly told me that it actually was the medical issues that disqualified me.
This sent me into a months long state of depression and hopelessness. I was able to climb out of that and eventually moved on to a financial level that allows me to live safely.
This speaks very clearly about employer’s ability to maneuver around any supposedly legal protections that we have.
I know this is irrelevant but I have to comment on a bill titled, “ Don’t Say Gaetz” aimed at educating high schoolers about the dangers they face everyday. It even states Rep. Matt Gaetz is the biggest threat to Florida’s children. Just find it interesting that it’s being debated in the house and I wonder what Don Gaetz thinks of his son not being very popular. Frat boy life ends sometimes and it’s time for Matt to take down the beer pong and take responsibility for his actions.
There is no such bill. This was from a satire column in the New Yorker.
I saw that it was satire after I hit submit. Nothing that comes out of Florida surprises me anymore and sometimes I wish the satire bills would actually come to life. Just hoping that Rep. Gaetz is held accountable for his actions because I’m getting really tired of the Florida ole boy system.