When a 15-Year-Old Conviction Still Costs You a Job: Why the Third Circuit Said “Enough”

Finding a job is hard for anyone. Finding a job with a criminal record can feel almost impossible.

In this episode segment, the hosts break down an important federal appeals court decision that takes a real step toward changing that reality—at least in Pennsylvania and the states covered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The case, Fath v. Central Transport LLC, centers on a man turned away from a truck driving job because of a 15‑year‑old armed robbery conviction, despite solid qualifications and security clearance.

At the heart of the discussion is Pennsylvania’s Criminal History Record Information Act (CHRIA). A recent ruling clarifies that CHRIA’s protections apply no matter how an employer learns about someone’s record—even if the applicant honestly tells them directly. That may sound technical, but it closes a big loophole and moves the law a step beyond the familiar but limited “ban the box” reforms.

This article walks through what happened in the case, what CHRIA actually requires, how advocacy groups helped shape the outcome, and why this decision matters so much for anyone trying to rebuild life after a conviction.

The story begins with Mr. Rodney Fath, an applicant for a truck driving job with Central Transport.

On paper, he looked like a safe hire:

  • He held a commercial driver’s license (CDL).
  • He had relevant driving experience.
  • He had federal port clearance—something that usually involves a security check.

But there was one problem in the eyes of the employer: Fath had an armed robbery conviction from 15 years earlier. He disclosed that conviction during the hiring process.

Central Transport rejected his application.

Fath took his case to court, arguing that what the company did violated Pennsylvania’s Criminal History Record Information Act. Initially, the district court dismissed his claim. But on appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed that dismissal and allowed his CHRIA claim to go forward.

That reversal is what sparked celebration from advocacy organizations and became the focus of this podcast conversation.

What Is CHRIA and Why Does It Matter?

Pennsylvania’s Criminal History Record Information Act (CHRIA) is a state law that regulates how employers can use criminal history in hiring decisions.

At its core, CHRIA does three important things:

  1. Limits when convictions can be considered
    Employers may consider felony and misdemeanor convictions only to the extent that they relate to the applicant’s suitability for the specific position.

  2. Demands job-relatedness
    There must be a connection between the nature of the conviction and the duties of the job. In other words, no blanket “you have any felony, so you’re out.”

  3. Requires written notice
    If an employer uses someone’s criminal history to deny employment, CHRIA requires written notice telling the applicant that this is why they were rejected.

This law reflects a long‑standing policy in Pennsylvania:

  • Blanket employment exclusions based on prior convictions are disfavored.
  • Consideration of a record must be narrow, specific, and tied to actual job duties.

In theory, this should protect the millions of Pennsylvanians living with criminal records from unfair hiring barriers.

But there was a catch—one that employers and their lawyers tried to exploit.

The Loophole: “We Didn’t Check the Box; They Told Us”

Many people are familiar with the “ban the box” movement. These laws remove the conviction question from initial job applications so applicants can at least reach the interview stage before criminal history comes up.

But as the hosts point out, there’s a major limitation:

“You’re banning the box, but that doesn’t ban the discrimination.”

Even with ban-the-box policies, employers can:

  • Ask about criminal history later in the process.
  • Run a background check after a conditional offer.
  • Or, as in this case, simply ask the applicant to self-disclose their record in conversation or on a separate form.

Here’s the loophole CHRIA opponents tried to argue:

  • CHRIA focuses on criminal history recorded by the state and how that record is used.
  • So, if an employer doesn’t pull a state background check and instead gets the information directly from the applicant, maybe CHRIA doesn’t apply.

In plain language: “We didn’t discriminate because of the official record—we just discriminated because they told us.”

That’s exactly the kind of dodge that would make CHRIA almost meaningless in practice.

What the Third Circuit Decided

In Fath v. Central Transport, the Third Circuit shut that loophole.

The court held that:

  • CHRIA protections apply regardless of how the employer obtains the criminal history information.
  • Whether the employer learns about a conviction through:
  • A state criminal records file, or
  • Voluntary disclosure by the applicant,

This has several powerful implications:

  1. No more self-disclosure workaround
    Employers can’t sidestep CHRIA by avoiding formal background checks and coaxing applicants into revealing their own records.

  2. Substantive limits always apply
    The job‑relatedness requirement still holds. If the conviction isn’t genuinely relevant to the duties of the job, it shouldn’t be used to deny employment.

  3. Notice requirements still apply
    If criminal history—no matter how obtained—is used as the reason to deny a job, the employer must provide written notice.

The court’s decision means Fath’s lawsuit can proceed under this broader, more protective understanding of CHRIA. But the impact goes beyond just one man’s case.

It sends a message across Pennsylvania and the entire Third Circuit: fair chance hiring isn’t optional, and clever lawyering won’t erase legal protections.

The Role of Advocates and the Amicus Brief

This outcome didn’t happen in a vacuum.

PARSOL (the Pennsylvania Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws) joined more than 15 other nonprofit organizations in an amicus (friend‑of‑the‑court) brief. The effort was led by the National Employment Law Project (NELP) and litigated by Otten / Ooten & Goldenberg LLP.

Their brief emphasized several key points:

  • Millions of Pennsylvanians live with criminal records.
  • These individuals face steep barriers to work, often unrelated to their ability to safely and effectively perform the job.
  • Pennsylvania’s constitutionally rooted policy already disfavors blanket employment exclusions based on prior convictions.
  • Allowing a narrow reading of CHRIA—where protections vanish if the applicant self-discloses—would gut the law’s purpose.

They urged the court to reject that narrow interpretation and instead confirm that CHRIA’s protections apply whenever criminal history is used in hiring decisions.

The panel agreed.

PARSOL’s managing director, John Dahl, captured the spirit of the win by emphasizing the group’s commitment to:

  • Ensuring fair opportunities for employment and reintegration for people with records.
  • Avoiding unwarranted stigmatization and unreasonable restrictions on those with criminal histories.

The podcast hosts clearly appreciate this alignment between advocacy, legal principles, and basic common sense.

Beyond Ban the Box: Toward Real Non-Discrimination

The conversation makes an important distinction between symbolic reform and substantive protection.

  • Ban the box removes a question from the initial application.
    That’s helpful—but limited.

  • CHRIA, properly interpreted, goes further.
    It says: if you use criminal history at all, you must:

  • Show it is relevant to the job, and
  • Provide written notice when it is used against the applicant.

The Fath decision reinforces that employers cannot:

  • Hide behind how they obtained the information.
  • Say “We didn’t discriminate because of the box; we discriminated because they were honest with us.”

As one host puts it, this ruling is:

“A step towards banning the outright discrimination.”

That is a big shift: from regulating how employers ask, to regulating what they can actually do with the information.

How Old Is Too Old? The Question of Time and Change

One of the more human moments in the conversation comes when the hosts reflect on the age of Fath’s conviction—15 years.

They raise an intuitive question:

  • Is a conviction from 1 year ago the same as a conviction from 5 years ago?
  • Is a conviction from 15 years ago still a real proxy for who someone is today?

This question goes to the heart of modern criminology and reentry policy. Research generally shows that the longer someone has lived in the community without reoffending, the lower their risk becomes—often approaching the risk level of someone without a record at all.

From a common‑sense standpoint, the hosts argue that there has to be some line where society acknowledges that people change.

Yet, as they point out, American culture—and especially regions that loudly cite Christian forgiveness—often struggle to live out that principle in practice.

Forgiveness, Punishment, and Cultural Irony

The final part of the segment moves from legal details to moral commentary.

The hosts note a troubling irony:

  • The U.S. likes to call itself a land of forgiveness.
  • Many invoke Judeo‑Christian or Christian principles emphasizing grace, redemption, and second chances.
  • Yet some of the most religious regions, especially the “Bible Belt,” often show the least willingness to forgive people with criminal records.

They joke darkly about:

  • “Fire and brimstone” preaching.
  • Old Testament images—floods, plagues, and wiping out whole families.

The humor is sharp, but the point is serious:

If a society claims to value forgiveness and redemption, its laws and hiring practices should eventually reflect that—especially when someone’s past is 10, 15, or 20 years behind them.

The Fath decision is one small but concrete move in that direction.

Why This Matters If You Have a Record—or Hire People Who Do

If you are a person with a criminal record in Pennsylvania or the Third Circuit, this ruling matters because:

  • Employers cannot avoid CHRIA by having you self-disclose instead of pulling state records.
  • They must:
  • Tie any use of your record to the actual duties of the job, and
  • Give you written notice if that record is the reason they turn you down.

If you are an employer, this ruling is a warning and an opportunity:

  • Warning: Creative workarounds won’t protect you from CHRIA. Whether you learn about a conviction from a database or a conversation, the law still applies.
  • Opportunity: You can update your hiring policies to:
  • Focus on current skills, qualifications, and performance, and
  • Limit consideration of criminal history to what is truly job‑related and recent.

Done right, this not only keeps you compliant—it also widens your talent pool and supports community stability.

Key Takeaways

  1. CHRIA Covers Self-Disclosure Too
    The Third Circuit held that Pennsylvania’s Criminal History Record Information Act protects applicants even when they disclose convictions themselves. Employers can’t dodge the law by avoiding official background checks.

  2. Job-Relatedness Is Non-Negotiable
    Under CHRIA, a conviction can only be used against an applicant when it is genuinely related to the duties of the job.

  3. Written Notice Is Required
    If criminal history is used to deny employment, the employer must provide written notice—that obligation exists regardless of how the information was obtained.

  4. Beyond “Ban the Box”
    This decision moves fair chance hiring from symbolic form changes into substantive protection against discrimination based on past convictions.

  5. Law Meets Principle
    The ruling inches legal practice closer to the values of redemption and second chances that many communities claim to believe in.

In a country that often struggles to practice the forgiveness it preaches, Fath v. Central Transport is a meaningful reminder: the law can, at least sometimes, push us closer to grace.