Nearly three years ago, Courtney Haveman spent six months and $6,000 to complete the training Pennsylvania requires for people who work in skin treatment and hair removal. A local salon was ready to hire the Lower Makefield resident as an esthetician once she passed the state licensing exam.
 |
| Courtney Haveman |
It was another major accomplishment in her new, sober life.
But the Pennsylvania Board of Cosmetology didn’t agree.
The board, whose members include professionals in the field and state appointees, rejected her application to take the licensing exam after Haveman, now 26, disclosed misdemeanor crimes she committed while struggling with alcohol addiction. Her past conduct suggested that she “may not be of sufficient good moral character” to work in the beauty industry, according to the rejection letter.
“I was so upset. I was so discouraged,” she said. “I thought I was just one of those who fell through the cracks and lost out on my dreams.”
She wasn’t. Between 2015 and last year, the same state licensing board denied 70 other people the opportunity to take its licensing exams, citing the “good moral character” standard, according to Andrew Ward, an attorney with theInstitute for Justice.
Late last year, the Virginia legal nonprofit sued the state Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs and the state Board of Cosmetology on behalf of Haveman and a Philadelphia woman, contending its character standard is unconstitutional and discriminatory since it’s not required for a barber license, a male-dominated career.
“Good character has nothing to do with skin care or hair removal,” Ward said. “There could absolutely be other boards denying for other occupations because of ‘good moral character’ requirements. In fact, I think that is likely.”
Cosmetology is one of 22 out of 29 licensing boards in Pennsylvania that require applicants possess “good moral character,” according to the institute.
Occupational licensing restrictions are the latest area that criminal justice reform advocates are targeting for change. Reformers contend that good moral character requirements are arbitrary, poorly defined, overly inclusive, potentially irrelevant, unevenly applied, and an employment barrier for individuals who pose no serious risk to public.
“These requirements are not an effective way of promoting legitimate public interests in safety and competence and are a significant barrier to rehabilitation for those with criminal records,” said Deborah L. Rhode, director of the Stanford University Center on Legal Profession and a legal ethics scholar, who has studied good moral character requirements in occupational licensing. “Because racial and ethnic minorities are disproportionately likely to have run-ins with the criminal law, they pay a special price for these requirements.”
A growing number of states are recognizing the potential barriers facing individuals with minor, old criminal records in employment, housing, school, volunteering and other opportunities. As a result, legislative efforts are underway to make it easier for certain ex-offenders to find work by restricting access to public criminal records, and limiting employer criminal checks and licensing prerequisites to only offenses directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the profession, according to the Collateral Consequences Resource Center.
Pennsylvania’s Clean Slate Act, which took effect last year, seals the criminal records of individuals with nonviolent misdemeanors and summary offenses who remain conviction-free for 10 years and have paid all fines. Those sealed records would not be accessible to potential employers, landlords, lenders, social service agencies and others, although they still will appear in FBI background checks.
But administrative regulations used by licensing boards sometimes are overlooked, reform advocates said.
Only eight states allow ex-offenders to petition a licensing board at any time, including before enrolling in any required training, to determine if their convictions would be disqualifying, according to the Institute for Justice. Ten states generally bar licensing boards from denying ex-offenders a license to work, unless the board determines that the applicant’s criminal record is directly related to the license sought, according to the institute.
In Pennsylvania, each professional and occupational licensing board can consider an applicant’s criminal convictions when making licensure decisions. Thirteen licensing boards, mostly in health-related fields, impose a mandatory 10-year license ban for drug-related felony convictions.
More than 60 professional licenses in the state require “good moral character.” Pennsylvania courts have found “crimes of moral turpitude” can trigger the good moral character provision, including simple assault, furnishing liquor to minors and theft by unlawful taking.
The potential economic impact of excessive licensing restrictions is significant. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that roughly one-quarter of full-time American jobs require a professional license or government approval to practice. Pennsylvania regulates 255 license types — including four types of cosmetology licenses — and just over 1 million license-holders, according to the state.
Successful re-entry into the workforce has been shown to greatly increase the chances an ex-offender will not commit new crimes, according to reform advocates. A 2016 Arizona State University study found that states with the heaviest occupational licensing burdens had higher new-crime recidivism rates, while states with lower burdens and no good character requirements saw a decline in recidivism rates.
Criminal histories and character-based restrictions are used as a “quick limit” to weed out perceived undesirable applicants, according to Leora Eisenstadt, an assistant legal studies professor at Temple University’s Fox School of Business who specializes in employment law. More individual assessments of applicants typically take a lot longer, but are more fair.
“That a single conviction unrelated to a job can destroy your future is problematic,” Eisenstadt added. “If it’s not related and doesn’t pose a danger, it’s just a barrier to someone becoming gainfully employed.”
‘A good chance’
The good moral character standard has been part of the state cosmetology licensing code for decades, but its use was reinvigorated in 2014, when mandatory criminal background checks became part of the application process, according to Ward.
In 2017, Gov. Tom Wolf authorized a review of occupational licensing requirements to determine if updates were necessary. The subsequent report released last year acknowledged the good moral character provision has the potential to be applied unevenly. The report suggested the administration examine its regulations to ensure they didn’t create “unnecessary” employment barriers.
Compared to other nearby states, Pennsylvania is an outlier in applying an automatic criminal history licensure ban, according to the report. While a handful of states have similar bans as Pennsylvania, the majority authorize consideration of criminal history only under certain circumstances, such as where the crime was related to the occupation being licensed.
This news organization was unsuccessful in reaching current members of the state Cosmetology Licensing Board for comment on how the character standard is used. Former board Chairman Stephen Wallin, director of the School of Beauty Culture, referred questions to board solicitor Shana Walter, who did not respond to an email seeking comment.
A spokeswoman for the state agency that oversees licensing said it has made changes to ensure applications for individuals with criminal histories are reviewed in their entirety and not disqualified based solely on criminal convictions.
The department has introduced new administrative measures, including probationary licenses, Department of State spokeswoman Wanda Murren said. The new licensing category is the same as regular full professional licenses, but allow the license to be immediately pulled if the person gets into additional legal trouble, Murren said. Regular licenses require a full disciplinary process that can last a year or longer, she added.
Applicants who previously were denied can reapply and the application would be reviewed “using the current standards,” Murren said. She could not answer specific questions regarding Haveman or co-plaintiff Amanda Spillane, citing the Institute of Justice lawsuit.
The department also is finalizing materials it will use as part of an upcoming public education campaign about the administrative licensing changes that Murren anticipates would be rolled out soon.
“We really do want to get the word out to the public (that) simply having a criminal history isn’t going to prevent them from getting a professional license. Not anymore,” she said. “We are looking at the complete application. Looking at qualifications. Where they are in their lives. There is still a good chance of having a professional life. A good chance.”
But Ward remains skeptical.
Spillane was among 55 cosmetology applicants between 2015 and last year who appealed their initial denials.
She brought reference letters, an outstanding employer review, and certificates from her completed courses to the hearing in 2015, but the board criticized her for not bringing witnesses to testify on her behalf, and she was grilled about her church attendance, Ward said. Spillane was not among the 44 applicants who had their denials reversed.
“Courtney was denied because of old, irrelevant misdemeanors. ... Amanda went through a hearing that was supposed to be holistic, but instead left her in tears and unable to work even though she’d earned a fresh start,” Ward said. “They don’t want to go through a degrading process like that again, and they’re suing because they shouldn’t have to.”
Dreams dashed
Today, Haveman is a married mother of a toddler. She has been sober since 2013. She is a stay-at-home mom, but she still dreams of a career in the beauty industry.
It was while she was working in a tanning salon that Haveman discovered her interest in skin care. She decided to pursue training as an esthetician, enrolling in a program at the Bucks County Beauty Academy in Lower Southampton, where she earned her diploma in 2016.
“I like making people feel good about themselves,” she said.
Haveman said she was honest when filling out her exam application and admitted to a handful of misdemeanor convictions, including driving under the influence and simple assault.
After the state Board of Cosmetology rejected her application, Haveman wrote its members a letter describing how different her life was compared with three years before, and the progress she made in substance abuse recovery. She included character letters from people in her addiction support group.
But the board responded that she would have to appear in Harrisburg to plead her case in person. Feeling defeated, Haveman decided not to appeal.
Then last summer, she got a letter from the Institute for Justice. The organization was considering legal action against the state to remove its character-based requirement. It heard she was rejected for past misdemeanor convictions and wanted to speak to her about possibly becoming a plaintiff in the case.
At the first meeting with institute representatives in a local coffee shop, Haveman was surprised to learn how many others pursuing cosmetology careers were in the same situation.
“I really thought I was the first, and only one, for years,” she said. “I was shocked.”
