A Hawaii employer did not violate the law in revoking a conditional offer of employment made to a "Receiver/Stocker" applicant after a background check revealed three prior convictions, according to a recent decision issued by a Hawaii federal district court.  In Williamson v. Lowe's HIW, Inc., Chief United States District Judge Susan Oki Mollway held that Lowe's Home Centers, LLC made a conditional offer of employment to Gregory Williamson, requiring him to successfully complete a background check and drug test before commencing employment with the company.  Williamson's background check showed that he had three prior convictions, including a felony assault conviction in 1998, a harassment conviction in 2004, and an assault conviction in 2005.  On the form Williamson filled out to provide written authorization for the background check, he only disclosed the felony assault conviction.

After learning of Williamson's prior convictions, and in consideration of his failure to disclose all three convictions on his authorization form, Lowe's rescinded the job offer.  Williamson subsequently filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Hawaii Civil Rights Discrimination.  The Charge, which alleged that the job revocation constituted impermissible arrest and court record discrimination, was dismissed and the employee filed suit in state court.  The employer removed the case to federal court and filed a motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

Under Hawaii law, an employer can only consider prior convictions of an applicant or employee that occur within the most recent ten years, excluding periods of incarceration, and where the convictions are rationally related to the position at issue.  In concluding that summary judgment was proper as to Williamson's arrest and court record discrimination claim, Judge Mollway reasoned that all three convictions, including the 1998 felony assault conviction, fell within the ten-year window given William's incarceration for more than five years after the 1998 conviction.  In concluding that a rational relationship existed between the "Receiver/Stocker" position and convictions, the court cited the Hawaii Supreme Court's recent decision in Shimose v. Hawaii Health Systems Corporation.  Concluding that Williamson failed to dispute any material facts Lowe's presented, the court turned its analysis to whether there is a rational relationship between the convictions and "Receiver/Stocker" position.  Lowe's argued that the "Receiver/Stocker" position requires an individual who is reliable, professional and courteous with supervisors, co-workers and customers while stocking shelves in a time-pressured environment.  The court concurred, concluding that Williamson's prior convictions of crimes involving harm to others could make him a possible threat to other employees or customers where job circumstances are likely to raise time and interpersonal stresses.  While Williamson argued that the rationale that potential work stress was sufficient to create a rational relationship would effectively preclude him from obtaining employment in any position, In so doing, the court distinguished this position from others, such as that of a delivery driver, who would allow an individual to spend more time alone and interact with others less frequently than a "Receiver/Stocker."  As such, his arrest and court record discrimination claim, as well as a derivative claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, were dismissed upon summary judgment.  Williamson v. Lowe's HIW, Inc.