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.
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.
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.
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.”
I thought apt managers already screened their employees. Is this something new?
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?
Typo/error. You write “for employees”. I think you mean “for renters.”
no typo