Defendant, believed to be a Proud Boys member, never responded to the lawsuit. 

CHAPEL HILL, N.C. – A man who spent months posting false allegations about the National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (NARSOL) on Facebook, including a fabricated claim that the organization is linked to groups advocating child sexual abuse, was ordered last week to pay NARSOL $18,458.56 in damages by North Carolina Superior Court Judge Clayton Somers.

Ronald Creighton Davis, of Pierce County, Georgia, never answered the lawsuit. He didn’t file paperwork and didn’t appear in court; he did not contest anything. 

Davis participated in multiple campaigns aimed at preventing NARSOL from holding its annual conference. The first succeeded. In June 2025, a Hilton property in Grand Rapids canceled NARSOL’s conference contract after a pressure campaign that included online threats, doxxing of NARSOL leadership, in-person hotel pamphleting, and calls to Hilton’s corporate offices. Davis bragged in his posts that he helped make that happen, affiliating his actions with the Proud Boys, a Southern Poverty Law Center-designated hate group.

The second campaign targeted a Holiday Inn property in Atlanta that fall. The strategy was the same: flood the hotel with calls, manufacture a scandal, incite outrage by falsely associating NARSOL with child sexual abuse, dox hotel staff, and make it too costly for the venue to honor the contract. This campaign failed, and the conference was held as planned.

“We are an organization advocating for the modernization of obsolete laws that ‘sound tough’ but, in reality, have proven ineffective and often harmful,” said NARSOL Executive Director Brenda Jones. “We don’t advocate for harming children. We never have. And if you visit narsol.org, you can read exactly what we do and what we don’t do, in plain English.”

Davis’s false statements were not accidental. NARSOL counsel Paul Dubbeling, Esq. of P.M. Dubbeling PLLC in Chapel Hill, described it in court filings as a deliberate strategy to invoke public fear and disgust, to make ordinary people and hotel managers react emotionally before they had time to verify anything.

“This small group systematically lied about who we are and what we do. They used lies to drive a hotel out of a legal contract with us,” said Jones. “But then, they didn’t bother to respond to a lawsuit. We sued. We won.”

NARSOL filed the lawsuit on October 7, 2025. Davis was served but failed to respond within the required time. The court’s order was filed on May 18, 2026.

“With this ruling, the court sends a clear message,” added Jones. “You cannot harass a civil rights organization out of existence by loudly repeating lies.”

Case: NARSOL v. Ronald Creighton Davis et al., No. 25CV035559-910, Wake County Superior Court, North Carolina

Media contact: Brenda Jones, bjones@narsol.org | www.narsol.org

The post NEWS RELEASE: North Carolina Court Awards NARSOL $18,458 Against Man Who Spread False Claims first appeared on NARSOL.

By Sandy . . . Is there anything more despicable than a scam? Schemes that use fear to extract money from those already living in fear go a step beyond despicable. Scams targeting people required to be listed on sex offender registries have worked their terror for longer than ten years, and they show no tendency of ending.

NARSOL warned registrants and the general public about this odious, illegal activity as soon as we became aware of it, and our efforts were eventually joined by those of law enforcement.

The scams have never stopped, but we have recently been notified of increasingly sophisticated efforts.

These scams can vary to some degree, but they will involve some variation of this: A person representing himself as someone in authority in law enforcement calls people on the registry and tells them that they are deficit in something regarding their registration, probation, or a new law; that a warrant has been or will be issued; and that he can take payment and stop the warrant.

This is what you need to know.

Law enforcement will not telephone you with notices that you are delinquent in some area of registry.

They will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER ask for money over the telephone.

The scammers will sound totally professional and knowledgeable and real, but they are NOT.

Here is what you should do: HANG UP.

However, if you don’t, if you, for whatever reason, think he might be legitimate, ask for his name and tell him that you will call him back at your registry office. Then HANG UP, call your registry office, and tell them you are calling to report a potential scam.

For more thorough information, including some law enforcement warnings, here are a few of the previously printed pieces. Some of the links within some of the pieces may no longer work.

https://www.narsol.org/2023/11/law-enforcement-paying-attention-to-sex-offender-scams/

https://www.narsol.org/2021/08/be-sure-you-know-about-sex-offender-scams/

https://www.narsol.org/2021/06/new-scam-warning-out-of-virginia/

https://www.narsol.org/2020/02/beware-of-scams-targeting-those-on-the-registry/

The post Scams targeting people listed on sex offender registries are alive and well in the U.S. first appeared on NARSOL.

Updated 4/23/2026; originally published 2/4/2025 at narsol.org as Sex offender residency restrictions: bad, bad public policy.”

By Sandy . . . Residency restrictions for persons required to register as sexual offenders are often enacted for no reason other than neighboring towns have implemented them. They spread like wildfire, and like that

destructive force, they wreak their own form of havoc, making it more and more difficult for registrants to find decent housing for themselves and their families. This, in turn, makes it more and more difficult for them to create the stability they need to become productive citizens, which, according to research, is what drives down recidivism.

What with adding more people to the registry and in some cases making the laws retroactive, the number of individuals caught up in this maelstrom of flame grows exponentially each year.

The spark that starts the blaze is one we all share, the drive to keep our children safe. Residency restrictions, however, are an inappropriate and contraindicated response to that desire. They are based on three assumptions that are contradicted by evidence:

Residency restrictions assume most child sexual abuse is committed by persons unknown or barely known to their random victims when in reality 93% or higher of cases involves someone well known to the children who have been specifically chosen.

The percentage of situations in which a prior relationship exists between an abuser and a child victim varies dependent on the age of the victim. A study done by the Office of Juvenile Justice found that for very young children, family members and very close acquaintances comprise close to 100% of their offenders while for teens, those categories make up 94.3%. The U.S. Department of Justice, in a mega study, found that overall, 93% of the offenders of children and teens were either family members or trusted acquaintances (p.10).

The policies presume offenders choose victims based on residential proximity, which is not supported by research.

Residency restrictions create zones around schools, daycare facilities, and often parks. These laws and policies, once begun, spread throughout a state with unstoppable ferocity. A two-state study, Michigan and Missouri, did not support the mistaken theory that living close to one of these was a factor in repeat sexual offenses against children. Another study examining several states found “. . . proximity to schools and daycares, with other risk factors being comparable, does not appear to contribute to sexual recidivism. These data do not support the widespread enactment of residential restrictions for sexual offenders” (introduction).

Residency restrictions assume that most sexual abuse is committed by repeat offenders, which research shows to be inaccurate.

On average, a significant majority of registered sex offenders are one-time, first-time-convicted offenders. A study in New York found that “. . . over 95% of all sexual offense arrests were committed by first-time sex offenders, casting doubt on the ability of laws that target repeat offenders to meaningfully reduce sexual offending” (abstract), and a study from the university of Tennessee had very similar findings. They report, “Another factor constraining [sex offender registries’] effectiveness is that past studies have shown that . . .‘94.1% of those arrested for child molestation were first-time sex offenders’ ” (conclusion of major findings).

Restrictions often force offenders away from support systems, treatment, stable housing, and employment opportunities, which are crucial for successful reintegration. These are the elements associated with remaining offense-free. Some areas are so encompassed by residency restrictions that homelessness has escalated, especially in states where residency restrictions are aggressively implemented, states as diverse as Wisconsin,  Florida, North Carolina, Illinois, and many more.

On the opposite end of the spectrum is the state of Kansas, which actually has a page on its DOC website about why residency restrictions do not work; the state passed legislation in 2006 prohibiting its  jurisdictions from implementing them.

What drives down reoffense? Housing and employment

stability, access to evidence-based treatment, amd family and community connectedness. What makes those things difficult, sometimes impossible? Residency restrictions.

Are there individuals for whom restrictions from a specific type of place is appropriate? Almost assuredly, and they should be handled on an individualized basis.

Creating “umbrella” laws that indiscriminately restrict everyone listed on a state’s registry, or everyone of a certain classification or tier, thus creating pockets of homeless registrants and acting as a barrier between registrant and rehabilitation, is more than just inappropriate and contraindicated.

It is unrestrained madness.

The post Sex offender residency restrictions–a harmful response first appeared on NARSOL.

By Calvin Till . . . Across the United States, one of the most significant barriers faced by people on the registry is not employment or supervision; it is housing. Without stable housing, successful reentry becomes exponentially more difficult, and individuals leaving incarceration often find themselves caught in a cycle of instability that increases the likelihood of failure. In North Dakota, a small but determined network of organizations and advocates are working to change that reality.

On May 1, 2025, the F5 Project opened the Restorative Paths program

in Fargo, a transitional housing residence designed specifically for individuals on the state sex offender registry who are returning to the community after incarceration. The program provides a structured, supportive, living environment where participants can focus on rebuilding their lives. As the live-in peer support specialist, care coordinator, and house manager for the program, I have had the privilege of helping guide that process. My role involves far more than simply managing a residence. Each day includes helping residents navigate reentry challenges—connecting them with employment opportunities, assisting with housing searches, coordinating with parole and probation officers, and supporting individuals as they adjust to life outside of prison or jail. For many participants, the transition back into society can be overwhelming, The stigma attached to registry status creates additional barriers that most returning citizens do not encounter.

What makes this work particularly meaningful for me is that I share lived experience with the individuals we serve. As a registrant myself, I understand firsthand the obstacles that accompany reentry: the closed doors, the skepticism, and the frustration of trying to rebuild while carrying a label that follows you everywhere. That shared experience often creates a level of trust that is difficult to replicate through more-traditional supervision models. When residents see someone who has navigated similar barriers and is now working in a role that supports others, it reinforces the idea that progress is possible.

Our work in Fargo is not happening in isolation; F5 will be opening another Restorative Paths house in Bismarck, North Dakota, around June of this year. These efforts are also supported by a broader network of organizations committed to helping people on the margins rebuild their lives. The F5 Project in North Dakota provides mentorship, recovery support, and reentry services for individuals transitioning out of incarceration. Through employment connections, peer support, and community engagement, F5 has become a critical resource for individuals seeking a second chance.

Faith-based and community organizations have also played an important role. Ministry on the Margins in Bismarck works directly with people experiencing homelessness, incarceration, and extreme poverty, offering outreach and support to those who often fall through the cracks of traditional systems. Similarly, AID, Inc. in Mandan, ND, provides services and assistance to individuals facing significant life challenges, helping bridge gaps in housing, resources, and community connections. Together, these organizations demonstrate an important truth: Successful reentry requires collaboration. Housing providers, advocacy groups, recovery programs, and community partners must work together to create pathways forward for individuals who are often written off by society.

Many individuals returning from incarceration are simultaneously navigating recovery from substance use disorders, making integrated support systems essential. To further strengthen my ability to contribute to this field, I am currently pursuing an associate degree in Human Services, with plans to continue toward a bachelor’s degree in the same discipline. This will provide a foundation with the hope of advocating more effectively for policies and programs that support successful reintegration.

The reality is that when individuals leaving incarceration have access to stable housing, employment opportunities, and supportive community networks, the outcomes improve dramatically. Reentry stops being a revolving door and begins to look like genuine restoration. Programs like the Restorative Paths residence in Fargo demonstrate what is possible when communities invest in solutions rather than stigma.

For those of us who have lived on the margins, the opportunity to help others navigate that path forward is more than a job; it is a commitment to ensuring that second chances are not just an idea but a reality.

Calvin is NARSOL’s representative in North Dakota.

The post From the Margins to the Work of Reentry:  Housing, Advocacy, and Second Chances in North Dakota first appeared on NARSOL.

Charleston, WV – March 13, 2026 – The National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (NARSOL) has filed a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of West Virginia challenging  West Virginia’s registry law that requires individuals on the State’s sex offense registry to disclose all internet accounts and online identifiers to law enforcement.

The class action lawsuit, Does et al. v Mitchell, filed on behalf of West Virginia’s 6,679 registrants, argues that the law imposes sweepingly overbroad reporting obligations that chill lawful online speech and undermine the constitutional First Amendment right to anonymous expression on the internet.

The complaint further argues that the statute is unconstitutionally vague because it does not define what constitutes an “internet account,” leaving individuals and law enforcement uncertain about what must be reported and exposing them to criminal penalties.

Under W. Va. Code § 15-12-2(d)(8), registrants must provide information relating to “any internet accounts” they possess, including screen names, usernames, and aliases. Additionally, registrants must report any new, removed, or changed internet accounts in person within ten (10) business days.

Failure to disclose the information can result in a felony conviction carrying a mandatory prison sentence of one to five years for a first offense.

The plaintiffs ask the Court to declare the internet ID requirement unconstitutional and issue an injunction prohibiting enforcement of the law.

The class action suit, represented by three West Virginia registrants, is partially funded by WVRSOL, NARSOL’s West Virginia state affiliate.

NARSOL will provide updates as the case progresses.

The National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws is a civil rights organization dedicated to promoting evidence-based policies and constitutional protections for individuals affected by sex offense laws.

Note to media: Court documents and supporting materials available upon request.

The post NARSOL Files Federal Lawsuit Challenging West Virginia’s Internet ID Requirement first appeared on NARSOL.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
communications@narsol.org

Austin, TX – February 26, 2026 – The National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (NARSOL) has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in the Western District of Texas challenging the current deregistration process in the state that arbitrarily bars those convicted in federal court from deregistration.

The proposed class action lawsuit Burton, et al. v Martin et al., submitted on behalf of the plaintiff and all similarly situated plaintiffs in Texas, contends that the state has arbitrarily denied individuals convicted in federal court access to the same deregistration process provided by law to state-convicted registrants with substantially similar offenses.  NARSOL’s staff attorney and Texas-based attorney Courtney Vincent jointly filed the action.

Under the state interpretation of current Article 62.404 law, only those convicted of a sexual offense in Texas state court can deregister. Those convicted in federal court cannot.

According to the complaint, the state has violated constitutional provisions of the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process. In addition, the statute in question places a venue bar for the deregistration process by requiring registrants to file the deregistration action “. . . with the trial court that sentenced the person.” While those convicted in state court can do this, those with federal convictions cannot. Citing the venue restriction, the state has denied all federally convicted registrants from the deregistration process. The lawsuit argues that a restriction on venue should not be construed as a jurisdictional limitation for deregistration in state court.

The class action suit, represented by the plaintiff and NARSOL, is partially funded by Texas Voices for Reason and Justice, NARSOL’s Texas state affiliate. The complaint requests that the Court:

• Permanently enjoin Defendants from treating Article 62.404’s filing directive as a jurisdictional bar to motions filed by federally convicted registrants;
• Declare that, to the extent Defendants continue to interpret or enforce Article 62.404 as categorically barring federally convicted registrants from accessing any judicial forum, such interpretation and enforcement violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment;
• Declare that Defendants’ interpretation and enforcement of Article 62.404 violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by creating a statutory remedy that is illusory and denying federally convicted registrants any meaningful opportunity to be heard;

The National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (NARSOL) is a civil rights organization dedicated to promoting evidence-based policies and constitutional protections for individuals affected by sex offense laws.

They will provide updates as the case progresses.

Note to editors: Court documents and supporting materials available upon request.

The post NARSOL Files Federal Lawsuit Challenging Texas Deregistration for Federal Convictions first appeared on NARSOL.

On January 27, 2026, NARSOL, in collaboration with AZRSOL, filed a federal lawsuit in Arizona challenging the constitutionality of the Internet restrictions imposed by the Maricopa County Adult Probation Department on individuals convicted of sex offenses. Titled Kenneth Soule et al. v. Michael Cimino, in his official capacity as Chief Probation Officer of the Maricopa County Adult Probation

Department, Case No. 26-cv-00560, the case has four named Plaintiffs, all of whom are under the custody of Maricopa County Adult Probation Department and seek greater Internet access while on probation. Plaintiffs seek to have the case certified as a class action.

Plaintiffs claim that the current policy and practices of the Maricopa County Adult Probation Department unreasonably restrict Plaintiffs’ access to the Internet in violation the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. In particular, Plaintiffs allege that the Department’s policies violate the First Amendment because the restrictions imposed are “overly broad” in that they “impose categorical restrictions on Internet access for individuals on probation for sex offenses, regardless of offense conduct, supervision progress, or individualized risk assessment.” Plaintiffs’ Complaint at ¶ 71. Plaintiffs allege the Department’s policies violate the Fourteenth Amendment because the Department imposed its Internet restrictions “without individualized findings, written justifications, or any standardized review mechanism.” Id. at ¶ 81.

NARSOL-affiliated attorneys Mark Weinberg and Adele Nicholas have brought the case, along with local Arizona counsel Samantha K. DuMond of the Dumond Law Firm in Phoenix Arizona.

The post NARSOL files constitutional case in Arizona first appeared on NARSOL.

By Sandy . . . His email was long, disjointed, confusing. I could tell he was angry with NARSOL (National Assoc. for Rational Sexual Offense Laws), but I couldn’t tell why. I emailed back asking if I could call him. “Yes,” and the phone number was the reply.

He was an elderly gentleman—we’ll call him William–and almost as agitated on the telephone as he had been in the email. He told me his story, which left me as bewildered as before. When I asked pointblank why he was displeased with NARSOL, he said, “It’s always men. You always make it about the men.”

I still wasn’t getting it. I explained that NARSOL’s focus wasn’t on who committed the offenses or what anyone’s offenses had been but on fighting unconstitutional laws and practices and legislation that was not grounded in solid evidence.

I must have been as confusing to him as he was to me. When I finished, he repeated that we “always make it about the men, but women do it too.”

Now we were getting somewhere. Parts of his story were starting to fit.

William had been sexually abused as a toddler and young child by a stepmother. He had vague memories that left him feeling confused and anxious, memories that still haunt him today over 80 years later. Just before she died, William’s older sister verified that the abuse had indeed occurred. Additionally, as an adult, William was a victim of an inappropriate physical assault by a woman in his church.

He was disturbed with NARSOL because we had not done anything to acknowledge that women commit sexual offenses. When I told him I could write a blog post about that, his reply was simple but powerful: “That’s all I want.”

Officially, the percentage of women identified as sex offenders is statistically insignificant. AI reports that women’s presence on sex offender registries ranges from 1% to 5%. The U.S. Sentencing Commission in its “Quick Facts” for 2024 reports that 93.5% of those sentenced for sexual crimes were men, leaving 6.5% women. However, research consistently shows women to be only a little over 1% of all who were incarcerated for a sexual offense.  The National Library of Medicine agrees with that figure. (The medical world tends to see much sexual offending as a health issue rather than a criminal one; NARSOL tends to agree with this position; health issues can often be prevented and treated.)

William and my commitment to write about this subject drove me to continue my research. And other things at the back of my consciousness were floating to the top. Things like Lauren Book, a child advocate and past Florida legislator who, as a child, was sexually abused for six years by her nanny. Things like “Joe” who is telling his story in serial form in the NARSOL Digest. In the first installment, “I am . . . , ” he lists all of the things he is and writes, “I’m the brother of a sister and a brother, both of whom were sexual abusers; I’m the child of an untreated, closeted, incestuous family with a taboo upbringing.”

A research study published in The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law has this in its abstract: “Although reports have shown that female sex offenders make up two percent of the whole sex offender population, the true rate is remarkably higher because the caretaking behavior of women masks their sexual offenses.”

Every year more and more is known about the ubiquity of sexual offenses committed by women. Evidence suggests that female sex offenders are significantly undercounted and underreported. Even though they constitute roughly 1%–5% of official sex crime records, surveys that have been completed by victims indicate the actual percentage is most likely higher, with some estimates suggesting up to 12%.

More and more literature is emerging on the subject. The title of this 2025 research paper encapsulates everything that William was trying to get me to understand: Female Sexual Offenders: An Underrecognized, Underreported, and Under-researched Population.

If anything ever cried out for prevention, it is sexual abuse of young children.

Options are available today that were not when William was a child. Information is so much more available. The taboo of speaking about being a victim has lessened—although not so much for male victims. Some good child sexual abuse prevention programs are:

The Moore Child Sex Abuse Prevention Center

Erin’s Law

Darkness to Light

Addendum: I have heard from the head of one of NARSOL’s state affiliates after he read this. He feels that the crime of a portion of women who are registered as sexual offenders was the passive one of not taking effective intervention. One of his members was a victim of her father, who was convicted. Her mother was also convicted of enabling child sexual abuse and registered for life. This is certainly a scenario where education about prevention would be extremely beneficial, and the prevention programs listed above, as well as many others, would address the situation.

The post Something you thought you knew about child sexual offense–but probably don’t first appeared on NARSOL.

By Sandy . . . As communications director of NARSOL, I receive many calls from reporters and journalists working on stories about persons in the community who are on a sex offender registry. Occasionally the presence of the registrant is being protested by the neighborhood. More often, the reporter has already decided on an “angle” and wants a comment from NARSOL.

I am always hopeful that the piece they write will open up the much needed, genuine discussion on the topics of those who are sexually harmed and those who have committed the harm. I am almost always disappointed.

I remember my first and most poignant disappointment.

The soft-spoken young reporter seemed genuinely sympathetic that a registrant was being harassed by neighbors who had put up signs on their properties with hateful words and arrows pointing to his house and/or his address.

I spoke to her at some length about the harassment and danger that persons on the registry suffered from vigilantes. I asked her if he or his family had been harmed. I asked her if law enforcement could help, and she said no, the people were exercising freedom of speech and using publicly available information.

She sounded as though she cared, and I couldn’t control a sense of personal betrayal when I read her published piece. The word choice and tone placed her clearly in the camp of the protesters. She reduced my carefully chosen words to a few “sound bites” that sounded as though I were excusing the behavior of the registrant and thought he shouldn’t have been held accountable for his crime.

What a disappointment. What a missed opportunity to do an actual community service.

The piece is certainly not the worst I have read, as these pieces go, pieces designed to do nothing of any actual value but only to agitate and raise the collective community’s level of fear, apprehension, and even hatred.

I know now that I asked the wrong question.

I should have asked her how the actions of the protesting neighbors would help make communities safer.

I should have told her that between roughly 95% and 98% of sexual crime against children is committed by persons who are in what is called the “circle of trust” of the family. This translates to the family members, peers, and authority figures of the victims. With this information, it’s an entirely different ballgame. Actions intended to “out” a registrant to the community or even drive hm from their midst will not arm families with protection when the risk, if it comes, is almost sure to come from within.

Clearly a focus on persons with a sexual offense conviction will meet with little to no success increasing public safety

I should have told her that over 95% of new sexual offenses are committed by persons with no previous conviction for a sexual offense. This figure jibes well with the fact that roughly 5% of people with sexual offense convictions reoffend. This is borne out by a huge number of reoffense studies, both federal and state. Random registrants with one conviction are statistically unlikely to reoffend; concentrating on them will have no discernable impact on public safety.

Focusing on one-time convicted registrants in hopes of making a difference in public safety is futile; it yields nothing but wasted taxpayer money and law-enforcement hours, not increased public safely.

Research shows that the safest communities are created when former offenders are given the opportunity to re-assimilate and show their ability to be law-abiding, productive community members. Public safety increases when vigilante activities are discouraged through peer pressure or law enforcement intervention. Behaviors and policies that isolate and ostracize former offenders only exacerbate conditions that lead to lessened community safety rather than greater.

Good prevention programs are shown effective in reducing the rate of sexual harm against children, community-wide initiatives and other evidence-informed programs. Indeed, prevention programs and targeted treatment  have a higher proven impact on reducing crime and making communities safer than do resources squandered on sex offender registries and lengthy incarcerations.

I now ask journalists who contact me this important question: What can you write about child sexual offending that will give parents legitimate information and useful tools with which to help protect their children?

In addition to links in the article, links to studies for much of the factual information and statistics are found here.

The post Public safety: What it is and what it isn’t first appeared on NARSOL.

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.

The post PARSOL Applauds Third Circuit Victory Protecting Fair Chance Hiring in Pennsylvania first appeared on NARSOL.