Appeals court says honesty from job seekers doesn't give employers a free pass
A federal appeals court ruled this week that employers cannot dodge criminal history protections simply because a job applicant was honest about their past.
The decision, handed down January 28 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, carries a clear message for hiring managers: Pennsylvania's rules limiting the use of criminal records apply whether you dig up the information yourself or the applicant tells you upfront.
The case centers on Rodney Phath, who seemed like a natural fit for a truck driving job at Central Transport. He had his commercial driver's license, the right experience, and even federal clearance to access secure ports. The company brought him in for an interview.
During the hiring process, Central Transport told Phath they would run a criminal background check. Rather than wait, Phath volunteered what they would find: fifteen years earlier, he had been convicted of armed robbery and served six years in prison.
The company's response was swift. Central Transport immediately told him he would not be hired because of that conviction.
Phath sued, arguing the rejection violated Pennsylvania's Criminal History Record Information Act. That state law puts guardrails on how employers can use someone's criminal past when making hiring decisions. Under the law, employers must show that a conviction actually relates to whether someone can do the job in question. And if they turn down an applicant based on criminal history, they have to put it in writing.
A district court initially threw out the case, reasoning that the law only applied when employers obtained criminal records from state agencies, not when applicants disclosed the information themselves.
The appeals court disagreed. In reversing that decision, Circuit Judge Bibas explained that the statute's language focuses on what kind of information an employer receives, not where it comes from. The law protects information that is part of someone's criminal history record, regardless of the source.
The key distinction, the court found, is between the type of information and its origin. When Phath disclosed his robbery conviction, Central Transport received information that exists in his criminal history record file maintained by state agencies. That triggered the law's protections, even though the company learned about it directly from Phath rather than through an official background check.
Central Transport had argued that interpreting the law this way would make ban-the-box laws meaningless. Those local ordinances prevent employers from asking about criminal history on job applications. But the court rejected that reasoning. Pennsylvania's law does not stop employers from asking about convictions. It just limits what they can do with the answers. Cities remain free to layer on additional protections if they choose.
The company also tried to invoke an exception in the statute for information from certain public sources like court documents and police blotters. The court found this argument unpersuasive. Even if that exception applied to hiring discrimination claims, it does not cover what an applicant voluntarily discloses. The law lists specific exempted sources, and by omitting applicant disclosures from that list, the legislature signaled they should not be exempt.
The decision sends the case back to the lower court, where Central Transport will now have to defend its actions. That means showing whether Phath's old robbery conviction actually made him unsuitable to drive trucks, and whether the company gave him proper written notice when it turned him down.
For HR teams across Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the Virgin Islands – the states covered by the Third Circuit – the ruling clarifies that criminal history laws apply uniformly. The protections do not disappear just because an applicant chose to be upfront during the hiring process.
The practical takeaway is straightforward. When someone discloses a criminal record during hiring, you cannot simply reject them on the spot. You still need to assess whether that conviction genuinely relates to the job requirements and document your decision in writing. In other words, honesty from a job applicant does not give employers a pass to skip the procedural safeguards built into the law.
