A restraining order can present a significant challenge for job seekers, complicating the standard employment screening process. Navigating this issue requires understanding court records, the mechanisms employers use for background checks, and the legal limits on how that information can be used. Laws governing the consideration of personal conduct in hiring decisions vary widely by jurisdiction, making it necessary for applicants to approach the job search with a clear, informed strategy. The primary goal for a candidate is to explain the context of the order and demonstrate its lack of relevance to the duties of the position sought.
Restraining Orders: Civil vs. Criminal Records
A restraining order, often called an order of protection or a protective order, is fundamentally a civil court injunction, not a criminal conviction. When a court issues this order, it legally mandates that one party must not contact or approach another party. The civil nature of the order means it is distinct from a conviction for a misdemeanor or felony, which is the focus of most standard criminal background checks.
The distinction shifts significantly if the order is violated. A breach of the restraining order is considered a violation of a court mandate, which is frequently prosecuted as a separate criminal offense, such as a misdemeanor. If a violation leads to a conviction or an arrest, that subsequent event will appear on a criminal history check. The initial filing of the order, however, remains a civil court matter.
How Employers Discover Restraining Orders
Restraining orders, like most civil litigation, are generally recorded in public court databases maintained by county or state authorities. This public accessibility is the primary mechanism through which employers may become aware of the order. While a routine, low-cost criminal history search may not flag a civil restraining order, employers often utilize more comprehensive background screening services.
Employment screening agencies, known as Consumer Reporting Agencies (CRAs), conduct searches that may include civil records, which can reveal the existence of a restraining order. These agencies are governed by the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), which imposes specific duties on how they collect and report this information. A more thorough background investigation, particularly for positions requiring high security or a high degree of public trust, will likely include a dedicated search of these civil court records.
Legal Limitations on Using Restraining Order Information
Employers are legally restricted in how they can use information about an applicant’s civil court history, including restraining orders, to deny employment. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance, while primarily focused on criminal records, establishes a framework that extends to non-conviction data, prohibiting blanket exclusion policies. This guidance is based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits policies that result in a disparate impact on protected groups unless the policy is “job-related and consistent with business necessity.”
An employer cannot disqualify a candidate based on a restraining order unless the underlying conduct directly relates to the specific duties and risks of the job. For instance, an order related to domestic disputes may be deemed relevant for a role that involves in-home care or unsupervised access to vulnerable people, where the employer must demonstrate a legitimate safety concern. To justify an exclusion, the employer must conduct an individualized assessment, considering the nature and gravity of the conduct, the time that has passed since the order was issued, and the nature of the job being sought. Furthermore, many states have laws that prohibit employers from considering non-conviction information, such as arrests that did not lead to a conviction, which can provide additional protection against the use of civil court records to deny employment.
Highly Regulated Industries and Mandatory Disqualification
The legal threshold for disqualification is lower in industries that are subject to strict federal or state licensing and regulatory requirements. Positions involving vulnerable populations, such as in childcare, elder care, and healthcare, often require applicants to undergo extensive background checks that include specific inquiries into conduct related to violence, abuse, or harassment. In these fields, a restraining order, especially one stemming from domestic violence or abuse allegations, can result in mandatory statutory disqualification.
Federal law prohibits individuals subject to a domestic violence-related restraining order from possessing firearms, which serves as an automatic disqualifier for roles requiring the use of a weapon, such as law enforcement, military, or armed security positions. Roles requiring a high-level security clearance, like those in government or finance, frequently have internal policies that treat a protective order as a security risk, as it suggests unresolved personal conduct issues. The statutory requirements in these sectors often override general employment law guidance, meaning the presence of an order can legally prevent employment.
Strategies for Disclosing and Addressing Restraining Orders
Job seekers who know a restraining order will likely appear on a background check should develop a proactive strategy for addressing the information. The goal is to control the narrative and provide context before the employer sees the raw court record. Candidates should be prepared to disclose the order at the appropriate stage, typically after a conditional offer of employment has been extended, and only if the employer has initiated a background check that may reveal it.
The explanation should be concise, professional, and focus on the current status of the order, such as its termination or resolution, and any mitigating factors. It is highly recommended to obtain and present official court documents showing the disposition of the case, demonstrating transparency and preparedness. When discussing the issue, the focus should shift immediately to job readiness, professionalism, and the order’s lack of bearing on the specific responsibilities of the role.