1E9Ct5D

• Whether the person performed the same type of work after his/herconviction without incident;• The length and consistency of employment history before and afterthe offense;• Any rehabilitation efforts, e.g., education and training;• Employment or character references that relate to fitness for theposition; and• Whether the individual is bonded under a federal, state, or localbonding program. 4While the Guidance does not mandate the individual consideration step, it states thatdoing so can help employers avoid Title VII liability by allowing them to consider morecomplete information on individual applicants or employees. 5Nevertheless, even if anemployer is able to establish job relatedness and business necessity under one of theabove two approaches, an individual may still prevail in a disparate impact case byshowing that the employer refused to adopt a less discriminatory “alternativeemployment practice” that was available and that serves the employer’s legitimate goals“as effectively as the challenged practice.”A. “Ban-the-Box” LegislationFollowing the EEOC’s issuance of its 2012 Guidance regarding the use of an applicant’scriminal history, the Commission has been aggressively pursuing employers who utilize4 Id. at Sec. V.B.9.5 Id.5