You could drive a semi through that loophole
Now, will other companies take advantage of this so that they defeat the spirit of the law? Perhaps. But the fact that they need to make an assessment means that might be subject to review at some point.
So to make it clear: as a day-care owner, you do not need to refuse employment to a previously convicted child-molester after they’ve successfully applied. You don’t because they violated their life-long-parole-like control and are in back in jail.
The exclusion clause will likely find more use as a loophole ...
> [Does not apply] to a position where an employer or agent thereof is required by any state, federal, or local law to conduct criminal background checks for employment purposes or to restrict employment based on criminal history. For purposes of this paragraph, federal law shall include rules or regulations promulgated by a self-regulatory organization
"It's relevant to ask the candidate their conviction history because they might steal our router, which would compromise our business".
It's not at all unreasonable to exclude certain people for certain jobs based on their criminal history.
But what if you are a small business and don't want the person there because you don't want the reputation of having someone with that particular criminal past working for you? Say you are a construction company that specializes in large play areas. Technically a child should never be on site while building the play area, and your workers will be gone before it is open for kids to play on, but the mere reputation association being made could cost business.
Is merely the possibility of a bad reputation reason to reject? If so, the law is effectively pointless.