Source vs. Substance: The Third Circuit Expands Protections for Job Applicants Under CHRIA

04.14.26

Criminal background checks remain a routine part of the hiring process. But for employers, how that information is obtained — and how it is used — can carry significant legal risk.

While a recent Third Circuit decision, Phath v. Central Transport LLC, interprets Pennsylvania’s Criminal History Record Information Act (CHRIA), the court’s reasoning offers an important reminder for Illinois employers operating under their own, often broader, restrictions.

The Volunteered Disclosure Trap

The facts of Phath are a common scenario in modern hiring: An applicant for a driver position disclosed a years-old robbery conviction after being told a background check was imminent. The employer subsequently declined to hire him based on that disclosure.

The employer’s defense was built on a technicality: they argued that because the information was volunteered by the applicant and not pulled from a state agency file, the strict mandates of CHRIA did not apply.

The Court’s Ruling: Type Over Source

The Third Circuit rejected this narrow interpretation. The Court clarified that the protections afforded to job applicants do not hinge on the source of the criminal history information. Whether the data is received via a formal background check or directly from the applicant, it constitutes part of the applicant’s “criminal history record information.”

The Compliance Roadmap for Employers

This ruling reinforces that the “Suitability Standard” is the only metric that matters. To remain compliant, employers must:

1. Assess Suitability Only: If an applicant has a conviction, it can only be used to disqualify them if the crime relates directly to their suitability for the specific role.
2. Ignore the Source: Information volunteered during an interview must be treated with the same legal weight and restriction as a formal FBI or state police report.
3. Mandatory Written Notice: If a conviction is a factor in a “no-hire” decision, the employer must notify the applicant in writing.

For employers, Phath is a clear signal: the procedural “how” of obtaining criminal history does not waive the legal “why” of applicant protection.

What This Means for Illinois Employers

While Phath is a Pennsylvania case, the reasoning is highly instructive for those practicing in Illinois. Illinois has parallel, and, in many ways, broader protections that every HR team should have on their radar:

• Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA): Restricts the use of conviction records unless there is a "substantial relationship" to the job or an "unreasonable risk" to property or safety.
• Mandatory Individualized Assessments: Illinois requires a documented deep dive into the specific circumstances of a conviction before taking adverse action.
• Notice Requirements: Strict pre-adverse and adverse action notices are mandatory.
• Chicago’s Fair Chance Ordinance: Imposes additional procedural hurdles and specific timing restrictions for city-based employers.

The Bottom Line

Whether in Pennsylvania or Illinois, the principle remains the same: An applicant’s voluntary disclosure is not a “free pass” to ignore compliance. Employers should assume that all disclosures must be treated with the same legal rigor as a formal background check. A consistent, documented “suitability” analysis is your best defense against a discrimination claim.