I understand the dilemma; if the state wants to push these re-entry programs, then the state should insure the employer willing to take the chance. Otherwise, the model doesn’t work.
While I know my opinion would not meet legal muster, I would contend that an employer hiring a released con should be able to make a good faith reliance on the state's determination that the person was no longer a threat. If the person posed an ongoing threat, the state should not have released him and liability for subsequent acts should fall on the con himself, the judge who who failed to impose an adequate sentence to keep the threat away from the public and/or the parole board who reintroduced the threat to the public before the full sentence had been served.