Best Buy’s Job Discrimination Revealed

best-buy-logo-flip-580During the holiday season when big box stores rake in the profits as Santa’s middle man, Best Buy has climbed atop the Grinch’s mountain and potentially seizing the title from traditional villains Walmart and Target. It remains to be seen if Best Buy’s discriminatory employment practices hit them where it hurts in the short run, but they will likely learn (as Target did) they are on the wrong side of history to discriminate against the 80 million Americans with criminal histories.

After Best Buy’s corporate offices discovered that Thomas Herndon, their Farmington, New Mexico store’s general manager, had hired a man with a bank robbery conviction: they fired him. The general manager. Despite the fact that Herndon subjected the prospective employee to a background check, drug test, and heard agreement from other employees, the corporate managers felt this was a “questionable hiring decision, without partnering with appropriate leadership, that could have put the company at risk.” Best Buy has no policy mandating their general managers partner with “appropriate leadership” (whoever that may be), and apparently does not trust someone who they have hired in a managerial role.

Best Buy may be violating the EEOC Guidelines of 2012

The lawyers among us can bicker about what sort of claims Herndon may or may not have, but the court of public opinion sways market forces more than judges ever have. In this case, Herndon sued for a retaliatory firing and argued that employers have an obligation not to discriminate under New Mexico state law. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (and the lower federal court) disagreed however, and ruled that the law only applies to state employment. This is a prime example of why “Ban the Box” laws need to extend out to all workplaces.

Ban the Box is a movement started by All of Us or None over a decade ago in California’s Bay Area, demanding that people not be asked to “check the box” if convicted of a crime. Through networks of directly impacted people, this argument against blanket bans has gone viral. Although over 100 jurisdictions have banned the box in some form or another, only Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, and Rhode Island have extended it to private employers. [Last I checked, none of these states have fallen off the map.]

The national network pushing for Ban the Box (and other reforms) has merged into the Formerly Incarcerated, Convicted People and Families Movement (FICPFM). Through a recent partnership with John Legend and Color of Change, FICPFM put 130,000 petition signatures on President Obama’s desk. A week later he announced an executive order to ensure a least discriminatory hiring process for federal job applications. To be clear, a decent process won’t end all discrimination in people’s hearts and does not guarantee a single job. What it does is allow an applicant to get a fair shot in an interview, perhaps at Best Buy. It gives him a chance to explain him or herself to a general manager, perhaps in Farmington, New Mexico. It allows someone a chance to start earning a paycheck and build up a life after serving their time in a cage.

Anti-Discrimination needs enforcement, not tolerance

President Obama needs to go a step further and require all government contractors to submit their hiring policies for Ban the Box review. Those with discriminatory policies, or reported discriminatory practices, will not get the contract. Any Congressional action, such as The Fair Chance Act (H.R. 3470 / S. 2021), needs to follow a similar route. Furthermore, Congress clearly must address injustices such as the one committed by Best Buy, who feel they can judge an employment application without ever meeting the applicant- this is precisely the reason hundreds of thousands of people have mobilized over the years to democratically call for changes.

Best Buy might be wise enough to learn from Target, who had blanket hiring bans against people with criminal convictions, despite also exploiting the labor of incarcerated people in Minnesota. When grassroots people, led by Take Action Minnesota and others, filled the streets and filed litigation, the corporation reformed their ways. Ironically, Best Buy’s corporate headquarters is one town over from Target, in Richfield, Minnesota.

As a member of FICPFM, grassroots author of the Rhode Island Ban the Box law, and father of a girl who has been wanting the “Descendants” movie on DVD: I certainly won’t be buying it from the Grinch who steals jobs from people who believe in rehabilitation, reentry and one interconnected community.

Directly Impacted Leaders go to Washington to Discuss Ban the Box

12068867_10207804792542764_4179258108567173346_oMembers of the Formerly Incarcerated, Convicted People & Families Movement gathered in Washington, D.C. to review and strategize around Congress’ proposed legislation to “Ban the Box” on federal jobs. FICPFM leaders met with key staffers for the bill sponsors and in the White House, relaying their expertise and analysis on employment discrimination against people with criminal records. Among the directly impacted leaders were attorneys, policy experts, and the people who coined the very phrase, “Ban the Box.”

An official statement regarding the “Fair Chance Act” legislation and call for an Executive Order is forthcoming. Stay tuned.

Read more about Ban the Box on our page, here.

Ban the Box

Ban the Box Campaign

DC Rally_kids with BtB signs

Our Ban the Box campaign calls for removing the question and check box, “Have you been convicted by a court?” from applications for employment, housing, public benefits, insurance, loans and other services. These questions mean lifelong discrimination and exclusion because of a past arrest or conviction record.

All of Us or None is recognized nationwide as the originator and the core of a Ban the Box movement that is sweeping the country. As of August 2015, over 100 cities or counties, and 18 states have removed questions about conviction history from their public employment applications – over 100 million people across the country live in a jurisdiction where the box has been banned in some form or another. Check out our Ban the Box historical timeline to see how we and our allies have developed this movement.

Campaigns to Ban the Box around the U.S. have been started by a wide variety of people: formerly-incarcerated people, neighborhood legal services agencies, City Council members, Mayors, other elected officials. For any of our campaigns to win, it’s crucial that we build broad coalitions that recognize the grassroots voice of people who have been directly affected by this discrimination. The short video Enough is Enough also describes the campaign.

To start a campaign in your area, check out our Ban the Box Campaign Toolkit. Contact Jesse Stout, or (or 415-625-7049) for a hard copy of our Ban the Box Organizers’ Toolkit and more information.

National Ban the Box Executive Order Campaign

Dorsey Hamdiya Lanice marching in DC

Our national Ban the Box campaign asks President Obama to issue an executive order and presidential memorandum to Ban the Box for private contractors doing business with the federal government. Federal contractors oversee around 30 million jobs; many are paid for with our tax dollars. By issuing an executive order to Ban the Box, President Obama could provide hundreds of thousandsof people the “decent shot” he says they deserve. Please consider downloading and printing our petition and gather signatures in your area.

To get involved with our executive order Ban the Box campaign, contact Dorsey Nunn at

Ban the Box Legislation

All of Us or None and LSPC co-sponsored AB 218 in 2013, California legislation that implemented Ban the Box policies for public employment statewide. (See the AB 218 Implementation Guide, created by AOUON and National Employment Law Project.)

In 2014 we helped pass the San Francisco Fair Chance Act – legislation that has expanded local access to housing and jobs for people with conviction records. This model legislation sets standards for how and when employers and housing providers may consider conviction records.

Several cities and counties who have adopted Ban the Box also require that their vendors adopt the same hiring practices as for public employment, which further increases job opportunities.

Ban the Box Pledge for Non-Profits

Nationally, we are promoting the Fair Chance Pledge: banning the box at nonprofits and foundations. If you think your workplace might want to take the pledge, please visit

FICPM Member Daryl Atkinson Receives an Award at the White House

Daryl_9453_edit_cropIt is not easy to be a strong, intelligent, bold Black man in this country. Put a criminal record on him and mainstream America puts him in a box. Yet, allow the same man to pursue his education, develop himself and recognize his true value, and then you can watch this man serve as a leader in his community. That is who Daryl Atkinson is: a leader.

Daryl’s recent speech at the White House, upon accepting a “Champion of Change” award, assessed the discrimination against convicted people in very plain terms. He calls out for traditional leaders to embrace the insights and leadership of formerly incarcerated and convicted people. The FICPM is blessed to have Daryl Atkinson as a leader among us, as his brilliant analysis continues to be strong, intelligent, and bold.

Watch and hear his remarks by clicking this link.


California Moves Forward On Banning the Box

Members of the Formerly Incarcerated & Convicted People’s Movement have led the fight  to end (or at least slow down) employment discrimination.  California has recently joined the ranks of states that will wait until they have offered before asking “Have you ever been convicted of a felony?”  This new law only applies to state and local governments, but private employers such as Target have voluntarily changed their application procedure after the threat of a lawsuit upon their corporate headquarters in Minnesota.

On July 1st, Los Angeles is poised to become the largest city in America to switch to this more inclusive policy.  “Los Angeles is the city of second chances,” the Mayor Eric Garcetti said. “Somebody might have been arrested for prostitution, they might have been trafficked into it. They might be arrested for drug trade or gotten involved in gangs because they had no parents around. If we’re a city that’s going to be truly compassionate, and most importantly, that’s going to move the entire economy forward, we can’t leave these folks behind.”

Although conducting background checks further along in the process (rather than on the initial application) does not ensure discrimination will not occur, it does force an employer to consider a criminal history in light of the fact that someone is right for the job.  The employer can then decide if their past action is somehow related to the job at hand, and/or recent enough to cause concern.  Furthermore, the prospective employees may explain about how their lives have changed, or the circumstances of what might be simply one tragic or unlucky day.

Those wishing to get more information, or involved with expanding this policy to all employers in the state of California, should contact All of Us or None, Legal Services for Prisoners With Children, or A New Way of Life.

For more, read:

New Audio Documentary: The Formerly Incarcerated and Convicted People’s Movement: The Struggle for Freedom and Transformation Continues

FICPM collage

L to R: Tina Reynolds, Dorsey Nunn, Bruce Reilly, Daryl Atkinson, Steven Huerta, Khalid Raheem, Susan Burton, Pastor Kenny Glasgow, Yusef Shakur

At the forefront of leadership in the struggle to end the US system of mass incarceration stands the Formerly Incarcerated and Convicted People’s Movement (FICPM), a nationwide coalition of formerly incarcerated men and women who are holding forth a radical vision for justice and transformation, and who are putting that vision to work in towns and cities across the nation.

This 29-minute radio documentary highlights the voices of nine members of the FICPM steering committee, men and women who have experienced the workings of the US criminal justice system from the inside out, and who have dedicated themselves to the work of building a new and better future, not only for presently and formerly incarcerated people, but for the entire nation.

The knowledge gathered represents just part of the FICPM, learned over the course of a collective century of incarceration, over a dozen college degrees, and several books in print.  Members are leading organizations, drafting new legislation, and releasing cutting-edge research.


Model Policy for Public Housing Regarding Criminal Convictions

Housing Report CoverFollowing up on the FICPM report, “Communities, Evictions, and Criminal Convictions,” here you will find the model policy boiled down to one document.  Advocates interested in amending their local policies should do so in partnership with the impacted residents in their communities.

Click the link below to download:


Model PHA Policy re Criminal Convictions


New Report on Public Housing: “Communities, Evictions, and Criminal Convictions”

Housing Report CoverThis report represents more than just a legal analysis about the struggles in low-income communities.  For many of us, this is about our homes.  This is about where we try to cook our meals, relax, and raise our families.  The stakes are high, inciting passion.  Yet we do not let this passion blind us; instead, we use it to motivate ourselves.  We encourage everyone, regardless of background or circumstance, to join us in taking action upon a most critical issue.

We are fortunate to have strong individuals and organizations working towards change in New Orleans.  The city is “ground zero” for incarceration, and a true tragedy considering the rich history and difficult geographic location at the mouth of the Mississippi.   What we have created is a national model, drawing from the expertise on the ground and in the legal community, to help our people step up and out of the carnage created by two generations of the “War on Drugs.”

The FICPM looks forward to building partnerships with people working on this and other issues across the nation.


Dorsey Nunn

Formerly Incarcerated & Convicted People’s Movement


Communities, Evictions, & Criminal Convictions

Housing Report Cover

Executive Summary

This report is broken into five primary pieces, along with an Introduction and conclusion.

Section I: Introduction provides a starting point on the topic of public housing and criminal conviction policies, rooting this issue in one particular city.  New Orleans tangles with the most intense incarceration in America, and thus the world.  Seemingly innocent programs related to criminal convictions, can take on a primary role in a city such as New Orleans, where one in seven Black men is either in prison, on parole or probation.

To fully grasp the community impact of affordable housing barriers in this sphere, one must account for arrest, incarceration, and poverty rates.  Particular to civil rights law, one should factor in the proportionality between recognized ethnic and language groups.  It is no mystery that in New Orleans, policies that affect people impacted by the criminal justice system (both individuals and families) are disproportionately affecting people of Color- especially African-Americans.  The contrasting affect is most glaring when comparing the drug enforcement policies of densely populated, overwhelmingly White, college students.  The excuse of “experimentation” has been reserved for a certain segment of young drug users.

Public housing exclusion standards apply to entire families, thus the impact is far broader than the tens of thousands who are formerly convicted, whether incarcerated or not.  Statistics typically fail to account for those who are no longer serving a punishment, yet they too have a criminal history that impacts their ability to obtain housing or employment.  Hurricane Katrina exasperated the dilemma of a public housing shortage, and rebuilding efforts have intentionally been below previous capacity.  There are now over 27,000 households on the waiting list for affordable housing, putting pressure on other services to deal with homelessness.

In Section II, this report provides a brief overview on housing and policing policies within the context of The War on Drugs.  The primary method of encouraging “drug free” behavior has been punishment, while the primary mode of enforcement has been to focus on densely populated low-income communities of Color.  The exclusions and evictions from public housing has been accelerated along with the escalation of the War on Drugs.  Accordingly, it may make sense for a recession of the punitive policies to span all fronts as widespread de-escalation is afoot in response to the growing sentiment that the War on Drugs has been a failure.

The goal of Forced Sobriety has justified highly-policed communities and a massive construction boom (and employment growth) associated with prison expansion.  The Department of Justice estimates that nearly 7% of all people born after 2001 will serve time in state or federal prison; this is on top of the 65 million people who currently have been convicted of a crime.  If current rates continue, about 1 in 17 White men, 1 in 6 Hispanic men, and 1 in 3 African American men are expected to serve prison time in their lifetime.  It is difficult to imagine anyone in the public sphere being satisfied with these statistics.

The history of public housing, and HUD, includes an acknowledged discrimination over time.  The 1.1 million remaining public housing units, and 2.2 million households assisted by vouchers, must be implemented in a manner consistent with HUD’s mission to support community development.  HUD has long been a partner with local policing efforts.  This partnership deserves scrutiny in the same manner as the police, as overly aggressive tactics have become (in some opinions) more destructive than the harms they purport to reduce.

Section III looks at how government actors are evolving on criminal justice, and new policies are competing with the “Tough on Crime” reactionary rhetoric.  The National Reentry Council is an interagency approach to confront the effects of mass incarceration.  The most active agency among them, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, has been dealing with employment issues for decades, and the agency’s 2012 policy change regarding the use of criminal records in hiring is a major breakthrough.

The EEOC provided one of the most significant advances in recent Civil Rights law, and they make specific findings regarding national data.  Specifically, the EEOC finds that the criminal justice system disproportionately impacts Black and Latino people in America.  This is significant when assessing a neutral policy under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1965, and any blanket policy using criminal history alone to exclude people will run afoul of Title VII.  The EEOC provides a framework to guide policies in both the public and private sector.  Courts have held that the various Civil Rights statutes are intended to work as a unified framework, thus developments in employment law can be persuasive regarding similar issues in housing law.

Section IV lays out the complex web of laws that serve as Congressional guidance to local public housing authorities (PHA), regarding the exclusions and evictions from subsidized programs.  Ultimately, HUD allows broad discretion to the local PHA.  By comparing policies to the HUD requirements, and comparing them to each other, it is clear that overly restrictive, and extremely vague, policies are guiding decisions that have a far-reaching affect on community housing.  When HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan put out a clear statement, that only two types of crimes are barred from HUD, few local agencies took any action.

Only people convicted of sex offenses, and on a Registry for life, along with those who manufactured methamphetamines on federal property, are barred from public housing.  Congress makes particular exclusions optional beyond that, generally related to drug use.  If someone was previously evicted for a drug related crime, they are faced with a three-year ban unless the offending family member is in prison, dead, or completed a drug rehabilitation program.  However, community members around the country have been dealing with policies that don’t provide for those nuances.

A model admission and eviction policy is included.  This policy is currently being used as a starting point for changes in New Orleans, and has gotten past a public hearing stage.  It addresses the need for the PHA to be part of a system where mentally ill and addicted people are directed towards help rather than prisons and homelessness.  The phrase “Reasonable Time” is reasonably defined, eliminating the extreme lengths of time people are facing around the country before eligibility for affordable housing.  The Housing Authority of New Orleans is currently working to develop and finalize a policy in accordance with these principals.

Section V is a detailed assessment of housing discrimination under federal law.  It also includes a proposed change (as of this writing) of HUD’s policy, by finally providing a federal code regarding disparate impact in housing.  Disparate impact is when a neutral policy becomes discriminatory- such as using drug convictions to exclude people from public housing.  Whereas studies indicate drug use is similar across all identified races, the chosen policing patterns result in an overwhelming percentage of drug convictions concentrated in Black and Latino communities.  All additional penalties attached, based on those convictions, will disproportionately impact Black and Latino people.  Thus, “Disparate Impact.”

Courts have long transferred disparate impact theory between employment and housing, but at times differed on the proper standards and process.  It is important for advocates to gain a full understanding of disparate impact theory.  This is likely to serve as a legal framework for pushing back against a myriad of criminal justice policies that have resulted in the systemic loss of economic and political power among Black and Latino communities.

The EEOC has found four key factors so that employers may design an acceptable “targeted screen,” rather than a blanket policy subject to civil rights lawsuits.  These factors are (1) Nature of the crime; (2) Time elapsed; (3) Nature of the job; and (4) Individual assessment.  Housing providers, particularly where there is a documented shortage of affordable housing (i.e. New Orleans), should develop a similar screen suitable to residential life.

Section VI focuses on the key elements to make a legal case for dispirate impact in the courts.  Those who are not interested in litigating a claim will nonetheless want to appropriate some of the standards and justifications that the courts have developed as consistent with the constitution.  One complication in presenting “impact” data is that many people with criminal records (and their families) do not apply for public housing.  Most people have “heard” you can’t get in with a felony, to some degree of accuracy or another.  Even if they were fully knowledgeable about the waiting periods, it is impossible to know how many are foreclosed because they would need to not know the policy, apply anyway, and be denied.   Thus, data of this sort may require a study of the potential (rather than actual) applicants who are deemed ineligible solely due to criminal convictions.  If Black residents have a rate below 80% of the White residents’ rate, it is likely to be deemed sufficiently “disparate.”

Under disparate impact litigation, housing providers would need to present the court with their substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interests being served by the exclusion policies.  Furthermore, they will be tasked to show that the exclusions actually serve the goal: Resident safety.  This cannot merely be speculation.  Finally, reformers can still prove victorious by showing that the interests (i.e. resident safety) can be achieved in a less discriminatory manner.  PHA’s who understand this civil rights litigation framework are more likely to recognize that a court may ultimately order them to a negotiating position exactly like the one being offered at the outset.  Delaying the adoption of a new policy by requiring the court order is the least cost-efficient way forward.

This report recognizes that there is a movement to repeal Civil Rights protections for people of Color in America.  Although Justice Antonin Scalia famously referred to the protection of voting rights as “just another racial entitlement,” the sentiments of state and federal policymakers suggest that Civil Rights are not going to be eroded.  Racial disproportion is one manner of addressing the problems of discrimination, and is the primary path outlined in this report.  As criminal records impact a larger swath of America, however, new legal arguments will emerge regarding the rationale to continue, or repeal, this framework that supports two separate citizenships.

The Appendix provides the complete proposed policy for the Housing Authority of New Orleans, and a nationwide sample snapshot of six other cities.


Communities, Evictions, & Criminal Convictions

Housing Report Cover

By The Way President Obama, We Need to Fix This Too

President Barack Obama signs legislation in th...

Voting Is A Right, Not A Privilege by DORSEY NUNN

(First appearing in Counterpunch, 1/09/13)

In the final weeks of the 2012 campaign, I had the privilege of traveling to Pennsylvania with a national delegation of The Formerly Incarcerated and Convicted People’s Movement.  One of the goals of this movement is to actively engage formerly incarcerated people in civic life through voter education and voter registration.  That’s why when two of our member organizations, the Returning Citizen Voter Movement of Philadelphia and the National Council for Peace and Justice in Pittsburgh, invited us to conduct voter registration in areas hard hit by Voter ID laws, we said yes!

Many of us on the delegation were haunted by the memory of the grand theft of 2000 when Florida’s felony disenfranchisement laws prevented over 600,000 citizens from voting in a presidential race decided by 537 votes.  If that wasn’t bad enough, following that robbery, we witnessed our country being led to war. We watched as our children were sacrificed for democratic principles that many of us are unable to access because of conviction histories. We read newspaper accounts of people being allowed to vote in Iraq’s prisons while back in the US, many of us were being denied the right to vote because we had been to prison. We saw elected officials proudly hold their ink-dipped fingers in the air as an act of solidarity with the democratic efforts pursued in Iraq.  Meanwhile, these same officials continued to block our efforts to make democracy more accessible to our communities.

During the 2012 election we felt an even greater sense of urgency once we realized that the new voter suppression policies target our children and our elderly, not just us. This time around, it was more difficult for the right to disguise the heist as a safeguard against voter fraud. Why? Because college students and seniors haven’t been as thoroughly demonized as people with conviction histories have.  It was harder for the right wing to justify stealing their votes. This didn’t stop them of course.

When examined more closely, the 2012 wave of voter suppression lays bare the unpleasant national truth that there is nothing fair about our politics. The purpose of denying fundamental voting rights to entire categories of people has always been about controlling the results. The increasing restrictions on early voting, the expanding voter ID laws

and the bogus concerns for voter fraud serve the same purpose as felony disenfranchisement, to hide and legitimize this control and render the theft invisible.

Well, we’re not having it.  Our right to vote doesn’t only belong to us as individuals. It belongs to our ancestors who died for it, to our children, to our families and to our communities.  That’s why we refuse to accept the idea that our votes don’t matter and that we don’t matter. We reject the distorted media messages about who we are.  We know that off camera, millions of us ARE contributing to our communities despite all the obstacles put in front of us. The sooner more of us can vote, the sooner we can dismantle those obstacles and make even more meaningful contributions.

According to an economist’s estimate in 2008, the severe employment discrimination against people with conviction histories costs the US economy, including our communities, between $57 and $65 billion in reduced goods and services. Due to disproportionate enforcement and sentencing, communities of color are hardest hit by this loss.  So while it may be that individuals are denied the right to vote one at a time, the fact is felony disenfranchisement results in the collective punishment of particular classes of people.  Guess who?

The 2012 election marks the first time formerly incarcerated people decided to follow our own lead in regards to civic engagement.  Why? Because over the course of the last decade we noticed that no one ever came seeking our civic participation in the places that we hung out or frequented. Although our numbers are impressive, the 65 million people with conviction histories in the US face a confusing patchwork ofvoter registration policies. Consequently our voting power is deemed too difficult to tap.  Young voters are targeted by efforts like Rock the Vote and strategies are employed attaching the value of voting to new citizenship. Many of us are part of those communities too, but as folks with conviction histories and prison time we need our own GOTV efforts.  Ironically even our celebrities with conviction histories never focus on engaging us. They use their experience to sell music but I haven’t seen them talk to us about voting. It makes me wonder if political consciousness is more dangerous than crime since it’s not proclaimed as loudly.

That’s why during the 2012 election cycle we decide to organize ourselves. We looked past the billboards threatening to punish us if we made a mistake about our conviction status and registered to vote.  Our movement reached out to people in jails, treatment centers, halfway houses and educational and vocational schools. We stood in front of probation offices and court houses and outside the various Alcohol and Narcotics Anonymous meetings encouraging our communities to become involved in the democratic process.  We also employed litigation strategies to expand the pool of people with conviction histories who are eligible to vote.

Consider the impact of the Latino vote in this past election; what might happen if Americans with conviction histories, including those who are Latino, were able to exercise the right to vote?  We already know, in states like Alabama, where we’ve won back some voting rights, we can have a significant impact on election outcomes.

In the early hours of Nov. 7th, President Obama said:  “I want to thank every American who participated in this election. Whether you voted for the very first time or waited in line for a very long time. By the way, we have to fix that.” As I listened, I thought of all the people who have never even been allowed to get ON the voting line yet and said to the TV screen: President Obama, we have to fix that too and we will.  2016 here we come!

Dorsey Nunn is the Executive Director of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and the co-founder of All of Us or None, a civil and human rights organization comprised of formerly incarcerated people, prisoners and their allies. He is also a formerly-incarcerated person.