Small businesses oppose legislation to ban questions about job applicants’ criminal background

Small business organizations have opposed a bill before the Ohio Senate that would ban employers from asking applicants about their criminal history on job applications.

The National Federation of Independent Business recently released the results of its 2026 state member ballot, finding that 92% of Ohio employers said the legislature should not enact “ban the box” legislation.

“Ohio’s small business owners need practical and reliable solutions to the issues impacting their businesses,” Jared Weiser, NFIB Ohio state director, said in a release. “This year’s member ballot shines a light on matters most important to Main Street: transparency, hiring practices, and workers’ compensation.”

In testimonies to the Senate Workforce Development Committee, supporters of the legislation have said that it would help applicants with criminal records obtain employment. Opponents, however, have said that the bill would increase the risk of lawsuits for small businesses and prevent the continuation of current second-chance programs.

“Our members strongly oppose the proposed ban the box legislation, which would limit owners’ hiring practices when small businesses are already managing a tight labor market,” Weiser said. “We are hopeful that Ohio lawmakers consider our members’ opinions on important policies impacting the small business community.”

Senate Bill 143, sponsored by Reps. Hearcel F. Craig, D-Columbus, and Louis W. Blessing, III, R-Colerain Township, would ban questions about applicants’ criminal history on initial job applications for private employers.

Public employers are currently banned from asking applicants about their criminal background under the Ohio Revised Code Section 9.73. The legislation would allow private employers to conduct background checks on applicants.

Rejecting an applicant due to criminal history would require employers to assess how the applicant’s criminal background has a direct and adverse effect on the duties of the job, inform the applicant of why they are being disqualified for the job, give the applicant five days to respond to the notice, and reconsider the decision if the applicant provides evidence that the information is inaccurate.

Once a final decision is made, the employer is required to inform the applicant of any procedures the employer has for the applicant to challenge the decision, and that the applicant has the right to file a complaint with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission.

Alex T. Boehnke, the vice president of the Ohio Council of Retail Merchants, testified as an opponent of the bill.

“S.B. 143 imposes a multi-step notification and appeals process—including written explanations, waiting periods, and opportunities for applicants to challenge background results,” Boehnke said. “For large corporations, this may be burdensome but manageable; for smaller retailers, these new administrative requirements could be prohibitively complex and increase exposure to litigation.”

“Retailers are already subject to federal and state regulations regarding hiring fairness and anti-discrimination. Adding another layer of state-specific procedure risks confusion and inconsistency, especially for employers operating across multiple states.”

Griffin Weasel, the vice president of government affairs and communications for the Associated Builders and Contractors of Ohio, also testified in opposition to the bill.

“This bill could inadvertently chill voluntary second-chance programs that are working well today, as employers fear added regulatory exposure without adequate protections,” Weasel said. “Small businesses—many with limited HR departments—would be disproportionately impacted, undermining their ability to hire the best candidates efficiently.”

Jason Varney, president of the Ohio Community Corrections Association, testified in support of the bill.

“One of the most concerning issues for people leaving prisons, and even residential community corrections, is finding gainful employment where a person may pay court fines and fees, victim restitution, and more importantly, begin anew and raise their children,” Varney said. “SB 143 will help applicants with records actually get interviews instead of being screened out automatically. Once someone can explain their history in context, they are much more likely to be judged fairly.”

The Senate has recently considered two other bills passed by the House of Representatives to help recently released Ohioans transition after leaving prison.

House Bill 296, sponsored by Rep. Melanie Miller, R-Ashland, would allow Ohioans recently released from incarceration to have a six-month grace period during which they would not be required to pay any outstanding court-assessed fines, fees, financial sanctions, or costs from a criminal proceeding.

The legislation is currently being considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

House Bill 393, sponsored by Rep. Gary Click, R-Vickery, would require community-based correctional facilities and programs to assist individuals in custody with obtaining a state-issued identification card before their release.  The Senate passed a version of the bill and will now move to the Ohio House for a concurrence vote.