United States: "Ban The Box": A Discussion Of State And Local Laws Restricting Inquiries Into An Applicant's Criminal History

Last Updated: September 17 2014
Article by Fred W. Alvarez, Eric S. Dreiband, Brian Jorgensen and Alison Marshall

Most Read Contributor in United States, September 2019

Over the last several weeks New Jersey, Illinois, the District of Columbia, and San Francisco have joined the ranks of states and local governments across the country that have adopted so-called "ban the box" laws or ordinances. Generally, these rules prevent employers from asking about an applicant's criminal history at the beginning of the job application process and allow such inquiries to occur only after the applicant has passed an initial employment screening. According the National Employment Law Project, 67 cities and counties and 13 states have adopted such provisions.1 More cities and states are expected to follow suit.

The ban the box movement stems from concerns about incarceration and recidivism rates. Proponents of these regulations argue that the increased use of background checks in employment screenings operates to exclude an alarming number of applicants from jobs for which they are otherwise qualified.2 Advocates contend that these laws will help lift a perhaps misplaced stigma accompanying a criminal record and force employers to evaluate individual applicants on their job-related qualifications and skills. They argue that this, in turn, will increase the likelihood that a person with a criminal history will find gainful employment and, eventually, lead to a decrease in recidivism rates.

Despite these legitimate policy concerns, many employers are pushing back, arguing that they have an obligation to keep workplaces and customers safe. They claim that employers who hire convicted offenders are exposed to negligent hiring or workplace violence claims, particularly if they knew about, or failed to diligently discover, an employee's criminal record. Additionally, many employers are concerned that ban the box statutes and ordinances create conflicts with other laws that prohibit them from hiring persons convicted of certain crimes in workplaces such as schools or hospitals.

This Commentary discusses the current state of the ban the box laws, the risks that these laws pose to employers, and strategies for compliance. It also contains a chart with highlights of key provisions from the jurisdictions that have enacted such laws as of the time this Commentary is published.

Current State and Local Laws

Thirteen states have passed ban the box statutes: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, New Jersey, and Rhode Island.3 Of these states, only six—Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Rhode Island—regulate private employers' use of criminal records.4 In addition to these statewide regulations, 67 cities and counties throughout the country have adopted ban the box ordinances, including New York, San Francisco, Austin, Seattle, the District of Columbia, Boston, Chicago, Atlanta, Tampa, and New Orleans.5 While not every city and county ordinance applies to private employers, a growing number do: San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, New Haven, Indianapolis, Detroit, and Baltimore.6

Notably, ban the box rules generally do not preclude an employer from considering criminal history information altogether. They simply require employers to remove the request for applicants to check a box on an employment application if they have a criminal history, thereby delaying a criminal records search until the later stages of the screening process. This delay is intended to prevent employers from relying on an applicant's criminal history as grounds for disqualification at the inception of employment, particularly if the person's past offenses bear no rational relationship to the job sought. Beyond this basic requirement, there is considerable variance among the statutes and ordinances, especially in terms of what information an employer may consider and when an employer may inquire into an applicant's criminal background.

Set forth below is a summary of state ban the box laws that apply to private employers at the time this Commentary is published:

Hawaii Rev. Stat. §§ 378-2, 378-2.5 (1998). Hawaii prohibits employers from inquiring into an applicant's conviction history until after a conditional offer of employment has been made. The offer may be withdrawn if the applicant's conviction bears a "rational relationship" to the duties and responsibilities of the position sought. Under the law, employers may consider an applicant's conviction record only within the most recent 10 years, excluding periods of incarceration. Additionally, the definition of "unlawful discriminatory practices" includes "arrest and court record" as an impermissible reason for an employer to refuse to hire, fire, or otherwise discriminate against any individual.

Illinois House Bill 5701 and Executive Order 1 (2014). The "Job Opportunities for Qualified Applicants Act" applies to employers with 15 or more employees and to employment agencies. Employers may not inquire into an applicant's criminal record until the applicant has been selected for an interview by the employer or until after a conditional offer of employment is made to the applicant. Positions that have state or federal law exclusions based on certain convictions are exempted.

Massachusetts Gen. Law Ch. 6 §§ 151B, 168-173 (2010). Employers can no longer use an initial written employment application to ask whether an applicant has been convicted unless there is a legal restriction that applies to the specific job or occupation (for example, schools are required to conduct background checks by Massachusetts law). An employer may inquire orally into an applicant's criminal record but may not ask about arrests, charges, or detentions that did not result in convictions; sealed or juvenile records; and first convictions for any of the following misdemeanors: drunkenness, simple assault, speeding, affray, or disturbance of the peace. (See G.L. c. 151B, § 4(9)). With certain exceptions, criminal records provided by the state may contain only (i) felony convictions for 10 years following disposition; (ii) misdemeanor convictions for five years following disposition; and (iii) pending criminal charges. The law permits employers to question an applicant about his or her criminal record during the interview process and may take adverse actions based on that record. However, prior to questioning an applicant or taking an adverse action based on criminal record information, an employer must provide the individual with a copy of the record. The legislation also requires any employer that annually conducts five or more criminal background investigations to establish and maintain a written criminal records policy.

Minnesota Stat. § 364 (2013). The law provides that private employers may not inquire into an applicant's criminal history until after the applicant has been selected for an interview or before a conditional offer of employment. Additionally, long-standing statutory protections exist in Minnesota, such as: (i) a prohibition against disqualifying applicants from public employment or licensure unless the conviction is "directly related" to the position of employment or occupational license sought; (ii) a requirement that job-related factors be considered; and (iii) a ban on using records of arrest not followed by valid conviction, annulled or expunged convictions, and misdemeanor convictions for which no jail sentence can be imposed, when evaluating applicants for public employment or licensure.

New Jersey Senate Bill 2124 (Effective March 1, 2015). Employers with 15 or more employees over a span of 20 calendar weeks are prohibited from inquiring about an applicant's criminal record until after the following initial hiring steps have been completed: (i) the employer has conducted an interview; (ii) the employer has made a determination that the applicant is qualified for the position; and (iii) the employer selected the applicant as its first choice to fill the position. Employers may make criminal background inquiries before making a final offer of employment. However, an employer who inquires about an applicant's criminal history must also consider any information about the applicant's rehabilitation or good conduct, information relating to any inaccuracies in the record, the amount of time that has passed since the crime or offense, and how the criminal record relates to the applicant's suitability as an employee. Employers may not, under any circumstances, inquire into: expunged criminal records, arrests that did not result in conviction, disorderly conduct convictions in which the date of sentence or release is five or more years prior to the application, or conviction of crimes in the fourth degree in which the date of sentence or release is 10 or more years prior to the application. The law exempts from coverage law enforcement, corrections, judiciary, homeland security, and emergency management positions, as well as positions for which the employer is legally required to conduct a background check.

Rhode Island Gen. Laws §§ 25-5-6, 28-5-7 (2013). Employers are prohibited from inquiring about an applicant's prior criminal convictions until the first interview with the applicant. An employer may inquire about the applicant's criminal convictions during the first interview. There are exceptions for positions where an applicant with a conviction history would be automatically disqualified by law.

What Risks Do these Statutes Pose to Employers?

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") is already aggressively challenging many employers' practices with respect to the use of criminal records in the hiring process. In April 2012, the agency issued new guidance relevant to an employer's use of criminal background checks.7 And for the past several years, the EEOC has initiated litigation and otherwise attempted to use its enforcement powers to reform employers' policies in this regard.8 The ban the box movement only exacerbates the risk of scrutiny by government agencies because there is now an increased layer of regulation in many jurisdictions at the state and local level.

Opponents of these rules have also expressed concern that the ban the box movement will make workplaces less safe and potentially expose employers to common law claims such as negligent hiring. But these concerns, while valid, can likely be mitigated. Ban the box rules do not prohibit consideration of criminal histories altogether. Generally speaking, they merely delay consideration of applicants' criminal background and, in some cases, prohibit employers from considering certain records altogether. See, e.g., New Jersey Senate Bill 2124 (prohibiting consideration of arrests that do not result in convictions). Accordingly, employers should remain vigilant about screening applicants with criminal backgrounds, only doing so later than they may have in the past.

Additionally, ban the box rules do not trump other laws specifically prohibiting employers from hiring individuals with certain criminal records. For example, federal law excludes an individual who has been convicted in the previous 10 years of certain crimes from working as a security screener or otherwise having unescorted access to the secure areas of an airport. There are equivalent restrictions under federal, state, and local laws for law enforcement officers, child care workers, bank employees, port workers, elder care workers, and other occupations. The ban the box statutes should not preempt such laws and regulations.9

Ban the box rules may also pose challenges for employers who receive large numbers of applications via the internet. Some of these employers use facially neutral policies, such as a policy automatically excluding persons who have been convicted of crimes, to weed out undesirable applicants without having to expend time and resources determining whether such people are otherwise qualified for the job. These kinds of automated exclusions based on criminal records are specifically affected by ban the box policies and can no longer be used in jurisdictions that have passed a law or ordinance applicable to private employers and contractors. However, there are other screening techniques that employers can use to weed out large numbers of people without running afoul of ban the box rules. Employers can establish noncomparative, objective criteria that are relevant to performing the job. Such criteria could include, depending on the circumstances, requiring applicants to have a degree or certain number of years' experience in a particular field, requiring certain licenses or certifications, requiring fluency in a particular language, or requiring availability during certain times of the day or week. If an employer still has a large pool of applicants, it may use random sampling techniques to limit the number of people contacted for an interview and, at this point, may weed out applicants whose criminal convictions affect their ability to do the job in question.

In sum, ban the box laws are intended to stop employers from discarding applicants in the initial screening process because of a conviction or arrest before they have had a chance to consider the applicant based on his or her job-related qualifications. To this end, employers must remove any inquiry into an applicant's criminal history at the beginning of the screening process. Once an employer makes a decision to hire the applicant, the employer can conduct a criminal background check. At that point, if an employer discovers that the applicant has been convicted of a crime, the employer should make an individualized assessment as to whether it should hire or reject the applicant for reasons that are job related and consistent with business necessity. To ensure that employers are making individualized, job-related assessments of applicants, the EEOC advises that employers establish targeted screening procedures that take into consideration the nature of the crime, the time elapsed since the offense was committed, and the nature of the job sought.10 Waiting until later in the application process to conduct criminal background checks may cause practical concerns for employers, such as potentially losing qualified candidates due to delays in the screening process. However, these employers should take comfort in the fact that the ban the box rules are not designed to force them to hire individuals with criminal records that legitimately disqualify them from the job.

Compliance Assistance for Employers

Given the growing trend among state and local jurisdictions to enact laws regulating the use of criminal background checks in the hiring process, employers, especially those who operate in multiple jurisdictions, should review their current criminal records check policies and practices with the following considerations in mind:

Revise Employment Applications and Policies that Inquire into Criminal History in the Initial Screening in Jurisdictions that Have Enacted Ban the Box Rules. In those jurisdictions that have enacted ban the box rules, employers should remove questions about criminal histories from employment applications. Employers should also eliminate policies that automatically or categorically exclude persons with an arrest or a conviction. Instead, they should develop, generally speaking, narrowly tailored policies and procedures that provide for individualized assessments of the applicant's circumstances.

Consider Criminal Histories Using an Individualized Assessment. Employers may still conduct criminal background checks for applicants prior to making hiring decisions. According to EEOC guidance, as well as many ban the box laws discussed above, when making employment decisions based on an arrest or conviction, however, employers should evaluate the candidate's criminal record in light of the nature and gravity of the offense, the time that has passed since the offense was committed, and nature of the job sought. Numerous other factors may also be taken into account, including, but not limited to, the person's age at the time of conviction, evidence that the person has held similar employment postconviction without incident, rehabilitation efforts undertaken by the applicant, employment or character references presented by the person, and the length and consistency of the person's employment history before and after conviction.

Provide an Opportunity for Applicants to Explain Their Criminal Records. In jurisdictions that require it, and as part of the individualized assessment, employers should also afford job applicants an opportunity to explain the facts and circumstances surrounding a criminal conviction. Employers should notify the applicant about the results of the criminal background check, provide a copy of the criminal record report to the candidate, specify a period of time in which the applicant has the opportunity to explain the situation, and make a decision only after hearing the explanation or after the time for response has expired. Providing individuals the opportunity to explain may expose, among other things, the possibility that the record was made in error, identifies the wrong person, or is otherwise incomplete.

Past Convictions Are Permissible Considerations in Most Cases, but Arrests Are Not. Generally, arrest records do not establish that criminal conduct has occurred. Many arrests do not result in criminal charges or convictions, and many are incomplete insofar as they do not report final dispositions. Moreover, under some ban the box laws and ordinances, for instance in Massachusetts and New Jersey, employers are expressly prohibited from asking about arrests that did not result in conviction. If an arrest is discovered, however, and the jurisdiction does not outright prohibit inquiring about it, the conduct underlying the arrest may justify an adverse employment action. As an example, if a person seeking a position as a teacher was arrested for indecent exposure to a minor, that conduct may be grounds for rejecting the applicant, even if the arrest did not result in a conviction.

Keep All Criminal Records Confidential and Keep Records of the Basis for an Adverse Employment Decision. It is generally a good practice for an employer to keep detailed records of employment decisions. The EEOC's Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures require employers to maintain and have available for inspection records about selection devices. These Uniform Guidelines require employers to maintain records in order to disclose the impact that their pre-employment tests and selection procedures have on persons identifiable by race, sex, and certain ethnic groups. In the context of criminal records checks, employers should consider monitoring whether conducting such checks excludes a disparate number of people in a protected classification group. Employers who maintain records detailing how a criminal record affects a hiring decision and demonstrating that the employment decision was made based on an individualized assessment of the candidate, even if he or she was ultimately rejected because of a criminal record, will be in a defensible position should discrimination charges later be filed by the applicant.

Highlights of Local Ban the Box Laws11

Location Employers Regulated Background Check only for some positions Background Check only after conditional offer EEOC Criteria Incorporated Right to appeal (A), or provide copy of report (C)
Private/ Contractor/ Vendor Public
California
Alameda County X
Berkeley X X X
Carson X
Compton X X X
E. Palo Alto X
Oakland X X X X A, C
Richmond X X X
San Francisco X X X X A, C
Santa Clara County X
Connecticut
Bridgeport X X A
Hartford X X X X X A
New Haven X X X X A,C
Norwich X X
Delaware
New Castle County X
Wilmington X X
District of Columbia X X X X X A, C
Florida
Jacksonville X X X A
Tampa X X A
Georgia
Atlanta X X
Illinois
Chicago X X X
Indiana
Indianapolis X X X
Kentucky
Louisville X X X
Louisiana
New Orleans X X C
Maryland
Baltimore X X X X X
Massachusetts
Boston X X X A
Cambridge X X X A, C
Worcester X X X X A, C
Michigan
Ann Arbor X X X
Detroit X X
East Lansing X
Genesee County X X
Kalamazoo X
Muskegon County X
Minnesota
Minneapolis X X X
St. Paul X X X
Missouri
Kansas City X X X
New Jersey
Atlantic City X X X X A
Newark X X X X X A, C
New York
Buffalo X X X
New York X X
Rochester X X X
North Carolina
Carrboro X X
Charlotte X
Cumberland County X
Durham City X X
Durham County X X X A, C
Spring Lake X X
Ohio
Canton X X X
Cincinnati X X A, C
Cleveland X
Massillon X X
Oregon
Multnomah County X X
Pennsylvania
Philadelphia X X X
Pittsburgh X X X A
Rhode Island
Providence X
Tennessee
Memphis X X A, C
Texas
Austin X X
Travis County X X X X
Virginia
Alexandria X
Newport News X X
Norfolk X X
Petersburg X
Portsmouth X
Richmond X
Washington
Seattle X X X A, C
Wisconsin

Dane County

X

Milwaukee X

Footnotes

[1] See Nat'l Emp't Law Project, "Ban the Box: Major U.S. Cities and Counties Adopt Fair Hiring Policies To Remove Unfair Barriers to Employment of People with Criminal Records" (July 2014), available at http://www.nelp.org/page/-/sclp/cityandcountyhiringinitiatives.pdf?nocdn=1 [hereinafter "Major U.S. Cities"]; see also Nat'l Emp't Law Project, "Statewide Ban the Box: Reducing Unfair Barriers to Employment of People With Criminal Records" (July 2014), available at http://www.nelp.org/page/-/SCLP/ModelStateHiringInitiatives.pdf?nocdn=1 [hereinafter "Statewide Ban the Box"].

[2] Smith, Johnathan, J., "Banning the Box but Keeping the Discrimination?: Disparate Impact and Employers' Overreliance on Criminal Background Checks," 49 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 197, 198 (Winter 2014).

[3] Statewide Ban the Box, supra note 1.

[4] Id.

[5] Major U.S. Cities, supra note 1.

[6] Id.

[7] EEOC, Enforcement Guidance No. 915-02, "Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964" (2012), available at http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/arrest_conviction.cfm [hereinafter "Enforcement Guidance"].

[8] See, e.g., EEOC v. Dolgencorp, No. 13-4307 (N.D. Ill. June 11, 2013); EEOC v. BMC Mfg. Col, LLC, No. 13-1583 (D.S.C. June 11, 2013).

[9] Enforcement Guidance, at § VI. See also, e.g., Richmond, Va. Resolution No. 2013-R 87-85 (Mar. 25, 2013)(exempting from ban the box coverage positions for which employers are required to conduct background checks); City of Baltimore, Administrative Manual, Positions of Trust AM-237-1 (Feb. 3, 2008), available at http://www.nelp.org/page/-/SCLP/BaltimorePolicyonPositionsofTrust.pdf?nocdn=1 (requiring background checks for positions of trust, which include senior positions with the municipal government, positions involving working with children, and positions where employees have access to sensitive information or financial resources, but stating that for all other public employment positions, criminal history information is not required of applicants).

[10] Enforcement Guidance, at § V.B.4.

[11] Major U.S. Cities, supra note 2.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions