11th Circuit upholds notification of registrants status to clients.
It’s hard enough finding and keeping a job as a registrant, even when you don’t have to advertise it. Sure, you have to live with the dread that a customer or co-worker will google your name or the other employees will gossip about you behind your back, but at least you have the opportunity to try to feed your family.
The 11th Circuit just dealt a bit of a blow to that opportunity in a case decided last week, U.S. v. Cordero.
Unable to find work, Cordero (who was convicted of a CP offense in 2006) began a business installing home security and automation systems. One of the conditions of his probation (a standard condition) is that ““[a]s directed by the probation officer, the defendant shall notify third parties of risks that may be occasioned by the defendant’s criminal record or personal history or characteristics, and shall permit the probation officer to make such notifications and to confirm the defendant’s compliance with such notification requirement.”
Cordero’s PO expected him to disclose his sex offender status to every new prospective client and the probation department suggested they would confirm he did! Cordero argued that if he had to do that he’d lose more jobs than he’d find (I don’t even think that necessitates an argument, it kinda goes without saying).
Now I don’t know about you, but I’ve not walked up to a counter and been asked, “would you like fries with that, and by the way do you mind if I’m on the sex offender registry?”” Maybe that’s a common requirement and I’ve just never heard it because people on the registry can’t get jobs. It just seems very harsh to me.
I can see the logic of making your employer aware. Not only for the public safety concern (if there were one), but you don’t want to misspend anyone’s time or training and you don’t want to ambush your boss with that news at an unexpected moment, but having to tell customers?!?!
Part of me wants to hope that Cordero’s situation was more so because of his job (installing security equipment), I just wish the case didn’t create an appellate court precedent that it’s OK to require a probationer disclose status.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What about remote employee? What about as a freelance writer?
So his PO just gets to decide that someone has to do this? When there is no law requiring it? This makes me sick.
No, it wasn’t just this man’s job. PO’s are out of touch in my opinion with how hard it is to get work under such circumstances. My husband’s PO said he had to disclose his status to employers, customers, family, neighbors who might just say hello on the street to us, etc. My husband was not willing to do that nor was I in favor of it, so we basically endured 2 years of solitude and living off of our savings while he was on probation. He was given a felony conviction for viewing 16-17 photos. The punishment does not fit the crime and neither of us has really fully recovered from the whole ordeal.
Take notice that this is a condition of his probation. When probation is over, he would no longer have to inform any clients of his criminal history (only his employer as they would do background checks anyway). But see, this is why I have always said that probation is a waste of tax payer money and a waste of time. Whatever a probation officer says you cannot do or must do, you can or don’t have to once probation is over. And probation being over doesn’t make the offense magically disappear from your life.
Probation officers as well as parole officers are, in my opinion, the real legalized bully system in LE.
Great point!
The man is going into people’s house’s to do that type of job. Thats a no-no. You wouldnt expect an RSO to be a life guard or a child care attendant. Yes its unfair. Yes it makes finding a job more then difficult; it can make it nigh unto impossible at times. But what if they hired him and he offended someone who was or is a client? The liability to that company would be catastrophic. That why I steered far and away from any job that would put me in that type of situation. If I havent reoffended in 20+ years, I’m not going to. But why put myself and my employer in that kind of situation? As per the wisdom of Mr Miyagi: best defense against punch – no be there!
Love the ” best defense against punch – no be there!” There is some logic to it and avoid situations of being alone with underage children, but only because of the possible misperceptions of others, not because I would do anything. .
I do think it is right we have to live in constant fear. Are not most security installations done with owners around? If he finds himself in a situation where he is alone with underage children he can remove himself from there. He can tell the owners that for liability protection it is the policy of his firm that property owners should supervise the installation to avoid property theft, and that as security specialist he encourages all his clients to do that. And so he will not be alone. Should not that be available to him? I feel that the same as with an employer, if a person/employer is paranoid or feels the need to know fine! But they should request that background check. I feel it should not be imposed nor a requirement
Does someone with a DUI have to tell his employer of that past conviction if the employer does not know? Someone convicted in the past of a bank robbery? Petty Larceny?
Then why a registered citizen? If an employer does not want to hire a registered citizen it should be on them to do a backgreintegration.
I don’t agree with the notion that a registered citizen should have to disclose to employers. It’s another unfair add-on making it harder to successfully reintegrate.