Category Image Laws and Courts

PARSOL Applauds Third Circuit Victory Protecting Fair Chance Hiring in Pennsylvania

By John . . . NARSOL’s Pennsylvania affiliate, the Pennsylvania Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (PARSOL), celebrates a major legal victory for workers with criminal records following yesterday’s decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Phath v. Central Transport LLC. The court reversed the district court’s dismissal and held that Pennsylvania’s Criminal History Record Information Act (CHRIA) protects job applicants even when an employer learns about a past conviction directly from the applicant rather than from a state criminal-records file.

In PARSOL’s sign-on as an amicus to the court filing, PARSOL Managing Director John Dawe wrote, “We are deeply invested in ensuring that individuals with criminal records are afforded fair opportunities for employment and reintegration into society, and our interests align with Pennsylvania’s long-standing policy to avoid

unwarranted stigmatization and unreasonable restrictions on those with conviction histories.”

In its opinion, the Third Circuit emphasized that “. . . job hunting is never easy; having a criminal conviction makes it much harder,” and confirmed that CHRIA “. . . limits when and how employers may use an applicant’s criminal history.” The panel concluded that Central Transport could not avoid CHRIA’s requirements simply because it received information about Rodney Phath’s fifteen‑year‑old robbery conviction from him during the hiring process rather than through a background check.

This outcome directly aligns with the position advanced in an amicus brief joined by PARSOL and more than fifteen other nonprofit organizations, led by the National Employment Law Project (NELP) and litigated by Outten & Golden LLP. The amici urged the court to reject a narrow reading of CHRIA that would have allowed employers to sidestep the law’s protections simply by asking applicants to self‑disclose their records instead of obtaining them from a state agency.

“PARSOL was proud to stand with NELP and our many partners in this case to defend Pennsylvanians’ right to fair consideration for employment,” said Dawe. “The court squarely rejected an attempt to create a massive loophole in CHRIA and affirmed that employers cannot sidestep the law simply by asking applicants to disclose their own criminal histories. We continue to champion fully-inclusive ban‑the‑box and fair‑chance hiring laws in the Commonwealth that would further reduce stigmatization and help ensure candidates are evaluated on their qualifications, not solely on past convictions.”

The amicus brief detailed how millions of Pennsylvanians live with criminal records and face steep barriers to work that are often unrelated to their ability to safely and successfully perform a job. It also highlighted Pennsylvania’s long‑standing public policy, rooted in state constitutional principles, that disfavors blanket employment exclusions based on prior convictions and instead requires that any consideration of a conviction be tied to the actual duties of the job. CHRIA codifies that policy by allowing employers to consider felony and misdemeanor convictions only to the extent they relate to an applicant’s suitability for the specific position and by requiring written notice when criminal history is used to deny employment.

In Phath, after Mr. Phath disclosed a fifteen‑year‑old armed‑robbery conviction, Central Transport rejected him for a truck‑driving job  despite his commercial driver’s license, relevant experience, and federal port clearance. The Third Circuit’s decision means his CHRIA claim may now proceed, and it sends a strong signal to employers across Pennsylvania and the Third Circuit that they must comply with CHRIA’s substantive and notice requirements whenever they rely on an applicant’s criminal history, regardless of how that information is obtained.

“This decision is a critical affirmation that CHRIA has real teeth,” PARSOL’s spokesperson added. “For people with records—including those with sexual‑offense histories who are committed to living offense‑free and contributing to their communities—access to fair employment screening is essential for public safety, family stability, and successful reintegration.”

PARSOL extends its gratitude to the National Employment Law Project, which led the amicus project; to co‑counsel at Outten & Golden LLP; and to all of the organizations that joined the brief, whose collective expertise and advocacy helped underscore the importance of CHRIA to workers, families, and communities throughout Pennsylvania.

Written by 

John Dawe, MNA, CNP, RCP, RCP-F is NARSOL's marketing director and also serves as managing & policy director at PARSOL where he uses his personal experience as a person who is both a survivor and perpetrator of sexual harm to help others with similar life consequences to live healthy and productive lives through recovery coaching. He has a Masters in Nonprofit Administration and is a certified nonprofit professional with additional graduate certificates in leadership, governance, and fundraising. NARSOL recognized Dawe as its 2025 Advocate of the Year.

One Thought to “PARSOL Applauds Third Circuit Victory Protecting Fair Chance Hiring in Pennsylvania”

  1. Christine

    This is great news. Trying to do away with the registry all together is still a big mountain to climb, but I believe will happen. However, if there is a way to chip away at many of the roadblocks that are put up for people forced to register ,and other types of felonies, then that is one way to chip away at the mountain. I would also like to see more groups come together with NARSOL and truly tackle the issue of protecting employees when someone within the company finds out about a person forced to register and forces the company to fire the individual. If the employee has been a good employee by the companies contract expectations there should be protections in place. Finally, if another employee targets the company and staff through defamation via word of mouth, or social media websites because of employment of a person forced to register the company has the right to dismiss those employees and pursue defamation charges.

Comments are closed.