Oftentimes, in public employment, employers come across an applicant with a criminal history that makes the applicant either undesirable or unqualified for that position.  However, statutory inroads have been made in the criminal rehabilitation community to allow those once convicted of seemingly disqualifying offenses to join the working community.

In the case of McNitt v. Minnesota IT Services, the state’s IT agency (MNIT), following a background check, found the applicant not qualified for the position of web developer due to his conviction of possessing child pornography.  McNitt appealed MNIT’s disqualification under the Administrative Procedure Act.  Following a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that while McNitt’s conviction was disqualifying, he submitted sufficient evidence of rehabilitation under the Minnesota Criminal Offender Rehabilitation Act (CORA).  The ALJ ordered that MNIT provide McNitt with a position of “identical responsibility and pay to the position that he had been contingently offered.”  The decision was ultimately appealed by MNIT.

After some procedural jostling, the court came to the substantive portion of the issue: whether MNIT had discretion to determine whether an applicant has demonstrated rehabilitation under CORA.

CORA provides, “[a] person who has been convicted of a crime…which directly relates[ ]to the public employment sought…shall not be disqualified from the employment or occupation if the person can show competent evidence of sufficient rehabilitation and present fitness to perform the duties.”  The statute also provides a list of how an applicant can show that they have been sufficiently rehabilitated (see case).

McNitt argued that the statute was unambiguous, and that when he made his showing of rehabilitation, MNIT had no choice but to accept it.  MNIT argued that it had discretion to determine whether it believed he was rehabilitated.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals found that the statute was unambiguous, and that applicants “with prior convictions ‘shall not’ be disqualified from public employment if they can show that they have been rehabilitated.”  Once the applicant provided documentation under the statute, the applicant has satisfied the requirement of showing rehabilitation.  The court found no language to the contrary in the statute, and stated that if the legislature desired for public employers to have discretion, it would have said so.  With that, the case was remanded to the ALJ for further proceedings.

The case serves as a warning for all public employers.  While these instances come few and far between, an employer needs to understand the requirements of CORA when it chooses to disqualify an applicant based on their criminal history.  It is more than worth it for an employer to become familiar with the statute for all future hiring decisions.  If you or your organization on questions with hiring, contact Wiley Reber Law, for legal advice that works.