Johnny Ramos is back working as a security guard again, and state officials are now hedging on whether they’ll have him removed because of a felony conviction 34 years ago when he was 18.

As CommonWealth reported in its spring issue, the 53-year-old Ramos and at least five other employees of Longwood Security were fired after a State Trooper doing an unauthorized audit discovered the workers had criminal records. A 50-year-old Massachusetts law prohibits felons from holding jobs as security officers or private investigators. Like Ramos, most of those who were fired had records that dated back decades to when the guards were teenagers or in their early 20s. One man in his 70s was forced out because of a conviction that happened when he was a teenager. And, like Ramos, all are minorities.

State Police are investigating the actions of the trooper, Denise Doherty, who launched the audit on her own and allegedly threatened the affected employees to quit or face charges. Ramos says the State Police officials investigating Doherty urged him and his coworkers to have their criminal records sealed and reapply for their jobs. Ramos and two others followed through, and were rehired.

Ramos says it’s been great being back on the job he held for 27 years. He’s been roaming the halls of The Boston Conservatory and chatting with students, faculty, and administrators who tell him they missed him during his four-month absence. “They’re so happy, they’re all hugging me,” says Ramos. “They’re glad to have me back and they noticed I was gone.”

But Ramos, a single father of a 14-year-old son who also cares for his elderly mother, isn’t sure how long his good fortune will last. The sealing of his criminal record shields any transgressions more than 10 years old from most eyes, but not those of the State Police, who routinely audit security firms for compliance with the law. What happens if the State Police do an audit of Longwood Security and discover once again that Ramos and his colleagues have records?

Earlier this year, a spokesman for the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security said law enforcement officials would be required to instruct Longwood that the employees must be fired if the company wanted to retain its license.

Yet State Police officials are now indicating they may have some wiggle room. Spokesman David Procopio said in an email that the State Police colonel is not authorized to dictate the hiring or firing of a watch, guard, or patrol agency employee. “If, at the time of licensing or during the period of licensing, the colonel is made aware of a licensee’s association with or employment of a felon, he/she may (obviously, depending on the circumstances) for cause, after notice and hearing, revoke, any such license.”

One way Ramos and the others could wipe their records clean is if Gov. Deval Patrick pardoned them, but administration officials say that is unlikely to happen. Another option is to change the 50-year-old law that bars security firms from hiring felons. Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz of Boston, who was instrumental in pushing through Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) reform legislation, says the Longwood case is just the type of issue lawmakers and Patrick were trying to address with the changes.

“It certainly does sound like a feature of the law that is not in step with the mindset and values of CORI reform that got passed a few years ago,” says Chang-Diaz. “Aged criminal records are inappropriately barring people from entering the workforce.”

The senator says she is troubled by the state’s blanket prohibition on security firms hiring individuals with felony records. “There may be some defensible reason why you might want to have a targeted prohibition of some kind,” she says. “But I have not been able to think of a reason why the state would need to have that prohibition in place in the case of private employers who have made a judgment this is not relevant to them.”

The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has already adopted a similar position. The agency issued a directive that prohibits using a criminal record as a preemptive ban in employment, saying such a ban has a disparate effect on minorities who are more likely to have encounters with law enforcement. The agency’s ruling came in connection with a Pennsylvania case in which a man was denied employment as a security guard because of a past conviction for breaking and entering. Like Massachusetts, Pennsylvania bars security firms from hiring anyone with a record.

Before she moves forward with filing any legislation, Chang-Diaz says she’d like “some clear commentary or clear direction from the feds.”

When he lost his $27,000-a-year job, Ramos says he was forced to cash out his meager 401(k) retirement plan to buy groceries and pay bills. After early withdrawal penalties, taxes, and fines, he said he had about $800 left over from the $2,100 he had saved.

Ramos is also starting over at work as a new employee; the three weeks of vacation he had built up is gone.  Still, he’s glad to be back. And when people ask him where he’s been, he tells them the truth.  “I tell them if I’m not around, it means it happened again,” he said.