"Never mind."
Posted on 08/21/2010 4:54:38 AM PDT by svxdave
Companies using criminal records or bad credit reports to screen out job applicants might run afoul of anti-discrimination laws as the government steps up scrutiny of hiring policies that could hurt blacks and Hispanics.
A blanket refusal to hire workers based on criminal records or credit problems can be illegal if it has a disparate impact on racial minorities, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The agency enforces the nation's employment discrimination laws.
"Our sense is that the problem is snowballing because of the technology allowing these checks to be done with a fair amount of ease," said Carol Miaskoff, assistant legal counsel at the EEOC.
With millions of adult Americans having criminal records, from underage drinking to homicide, increasingly more job seekers are having a rough time finding work. And more companies are trying to screen out people with bankruptcies, court judgments or other credit problems just as those numbers have swollen during the recession.
Ask Adrienne Hudson, a single mother who says she was fired from her new job as a bus driver at First Transit in Oakland, California, when the company found out she had been convicted seven years earlier for welfare fraud.
Hudson, 44, is fighting back with a lawsuit alleging the company's hiring practice discriminates against black and Latino job seekers, who have arrest and conviction rates far greater than whites. A spokesman for First Transit said the company does not comment on pending litigation.
"People make mistakes," said Hudson, who is black, "but when they correct their mistake, they should not be punished again outside of the court system."
Justice Department statistics show that 38 percent of the U.S. prison population is black, compared with about 12 percent of the general population. In 2008, African-Americans were about six times more likely to be incarcerated than whites. The incarceration rate for Latinos was 2.3 times higher than whites.
If criminal histories are taken into account, the EEOC says employers must also consider the nature of the job, the seriousness of the offense and how long ago it occurred. For example, it may make sense to disqualify a bank employee with a past conviction for embezzlement, but not necessarily for drunken driving.
Most companies tend to be more nuanced when they look at credit reports, weeding out those applicants with bad credit only if they seek senior positions or jobs dealing with money. But if the screening process weeds out more black and Hispanic applicants than whites, an employer needs to show how the credit information is related to the job.
About 73 percent of major employers report that they always check on applicants' criminal records, while 19 percent do so for select job candidates, according to a 2010 survey by the Society for Human Resource Management.
The same survey found that almost half of major companies conduct credit checks for some job candidates, such as those who would be in a position of financial trust. Another 13 percent perform credit checks for all potential workers.
Last fall, the EEOC sent a strong message to employers when it filed a class-action lawsuit against Freeman Cos., a Dallas-based events planning firm, alleging the company discriminated against blacks, Hispanics and males by rejecting job seekers based on credit history and criminal records. Freeman has denied the charges.
The growth of online databases and a multimillion dollar background check industry have made it easy for employers to find out reams of information about potential hires. Companies see the checks as another way to weed out unsavory candidates, keep a safe work environment and prevent negligent hiring claims.
"Past indiscretions may be an indicator of future behavior, especially in the criminal context," said Pamela Devata, a Chicago employment lawyer who has represented companies trying to comply with EEOC's requirements.
Devata said employers nationwide have seen the EEOC become more active in investigating employer hiring practices. The scrutiny has caused many companies to re-evaluate their screening process and move to a case-by-case standard.
Ariela Migdal, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union's Women's Rights Project in New York, said a person might have a blemish that has nothing to do with the job he or she is seeking. Records sometimes are inaccurate or not updated to reflect that someone arrested later had charges dropped or a conviction overturned or expunged, she said.
"Somebody with an old conviction that has been rehabilitated doesn't have any greater likelihood of committing a crime, so it's irrational to use that against them," Migdal said.
Ron Heintzman, president of the Amalgamated Transit Union, said he has seen dozens of job candidates disqualified "for reasons that were just ridiculous." His union, with 13,000 members in First Transit, is paying for the lawsuit that Hudson filed last month against the company which operates bus service in Oakland and several other major cities.
In Hudson's case, she was fired after just two days on the job as a bus driver because of a 7-year-old felony welfare fraud conviction. The conviction was later dismissed under California law, but her lawsuit, filed in federal court last month, claims the company has a policy to deny employment no matter how old the conviction, the applicant's prior work history or whether it is related to the job.
But it’s fine to disqualify Whites seeking jobs by labeling them “over qualified” because they have actually finished high school and college and the position needs to be filled with an affirmative action hire.
An employer being concerned with a felony fraud conviction is "ridiculous"?
"Never mind."
These people must be rooted out and eliminated.
Leopards seldom change their spots.
Deliberately defrauding the welfare system is not a "mistake" - it is a deliberate criminal act.
I’m of two minds (Yes, I know there are medications for that.. ;)) on this —
On the one hand, I fully support a private employer’s right to hire, or not hire, anybody he wants, using any criteria he may choose...
On the other, though, I question the wisdom of the rise of a multitude of ‘other considerations’ (Government- and self-imposed) beyond “Can this person do the job and add to my company’s profitability?”
“A blanket refusal to hire workers based on criminal records or credit problems can be illegal if it has a disparate impact on racial minorities, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.”
So let me see if I understand this.
Refusing to hire someone because their past presents strong evidence that not only may they not be a good, reliable worker but that they also may display behavior that could damage your business — THAT IS DISCRIMINATION.
HOWEVER, issuing warnings BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE MINORITIES TEND TO BE CRIMINALS — that is enforcing EQUAL OPPORTUNITY.
This is your “nudge” bureaucracy at work folks. Just wait for this mentality to infiltrate lending and healthcare and home-ownership, and anything else the government gets its tyrannical fingers around.
So we should simply bar them from ever obtaining meaningful employment ever again?
Not only that, even if they did change, if you had the choice of doing business with another business that hires only people who have earned their positions and who have no criminal records or one that caters to hiring those with criminal records, which would you choose?
And lets consider some of the criminal activity that we would not want in our workplace. How about DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, EEOC? Should employers be forced to hire guys who beat the crap out of their wives? How about sexual assault? How about violent crime? How about breaking-and-entering? And how many crimes should employers be forced to ignore, just one, or even those with a rap sheet as long as your arm? Don’t be hypocritical now, EEOC, by saying it’s OK to discriminate against someone with multiple (read: A HISTORY OF) criminal activity vs. just a single offense.
Our actions have consequences. Part of the problem with our culture is that, thanks to the “Victimites” out there, people are being given “Get Out Of Jail Free” cards for every bad choice they make.
But in the real world, your past actions still have present and future impacts.
And if you are caught embezzling from an employer and have a record because of it, that fact damn well ought to precede you at every job interview you have. When you make that choice to embezzle, you should be fully aware you may be caught and you may never have a decent job again because of it. WHEN THAT IS THE CASE, PEOPLE THINK TWICE ABOUT MAKING A BAD DECISION.
It is only fair to the employer to be able to protect his/her business and all those that they employ.
So you’re willing to hire a rapist? A child molester? An embezzler?
Go right ahead. Good luck.
I'll put it this way - given the choice between a clean applicant with no felony record and an applicant with a record of defrauding the government, I will pick the applicant with the clean record every time. Considering that the unemployment rate is near 10% (probably higher than that), there are plenty of qualified applicants that DON'T have a criminal record.
If you're going to commit a crime, you should really think about ALL the consequences of your actions.
No, these people have simply limited the potential jobs they can obtain through their personal choice in the past.
It is a simple concept: hold people responsible for their actions.
The EEOC message? Go ahead and commit whatever crimes you want, we will force employers to give you a job
Of course when you hire the criminal and he commits another crime on your property you will be on the hook.
This “disparate impact” notion is dangerous as all get-out. Ever since the first time I heard the phrase more than 20 years ago, I just knew it was trouble.
Using “disparate impact” is how they get ALL this nonsense past right-thinking people. Not enough blacks pass the police test? Disparate impact. Not enough women can do 14 pull-ups and get into the fire department? Disparate impact. Disparate impact, disparate impact....UGH! How I hate to even hear the words! It’s one of the ways our country is being eaten alive by vultures.
Regards,
PS: Besides “disparate impact,” another hateful, dangerous phrase is “consent decree.” Vulture food, both of them!
There's some confusion of cause and effect here. "Disparate effect" isn't distinguished from "disparate cause"--i.e., that minorities have a MUCH higher rate of criminality. Combine that with the various mandates to have a safe workplace and those that often make the employer responsible for the acts of his agents, and you have a very confusing situation, and one that discourages hiring.
“Disparate impact” = dummying down the standards. People should rise up to the challenge. We shouldn’t be catering to the lazy.
I can understand criminal records, but credit problems?
Just more anti-white, egalitarian, multicultural BS. Will Whites EVER wake up. Of that's right it would be racist. Nevermind.
WHY DOESN’T THE U.S. GOVERNMENT HIRE THEM? THAT SEEMS TO BE THE NECESSARY CRITERIA TO WORK THERE ANYWAY. HALF OF THESE CRIMINALS HAVE BEEN WARDS OF THE STATE SINCE THEIR TEENAGE YEARS ANYWAY, WHAT’S ANOTHER HANDOUT EXCEPT THEY’RE NOT BEHIND BARS? AS FOR DEADBEATS, WHAT THE HE$$, MIGHT AS WELL BE A BIGGER PART OF OBAMA’S NEW MORTGAGE PROGRAM, “NOT ONLY DO WE FIX YOUR MORTGAGE, WE’LL HIRE YOU AND PAY YOU SO YOU CAN PAY YOUR MORTGAGE....”
So, the government creates the criminal system then tells everyone not to use it themselves. Once again, government is the problem.
Any Conservative in the Government should have the EEOC at the top of their list of the most worthless and harmful government agencies that need to be eliminated.
As someone who's been in a hiring position on/off for the last 20+ years, looking at someone's credit rating is a very good indication of one's personal responsibility and accountability.
All other factors being equal between two candidates, I'll take the one with the clean credit report over the one that's littered with late payments, defaults and a bankruptcy. If they're responsible with their own money, they'll be responsible with the company's money too.
That's just the way it's viewed.
"I have a civil war to start and Gilda to frame for it..."
The government does hire them. Just walk into any government agency and look around.
Hire them? HELL, THEY GET ELECTED!!
In other words, hire criminal blacks and Hispanics or go to jail, and refuse jobs to honest, hard working, law abiding Whites or go to jail.
Hire them and get robbed and too bad for you!
This is not the country I once knew.
you cant control your own business anymore..forced to hire people who will kill it.
This is interesting because most ABA state bar associations control entry into the legal profession and a stated disqualification in their charters is the commission of a felony.
Many other professions which require licenses also ban felons including insurance, real estate, medicine, and even mortuary workers.
Two whites: OK to hire the one w/o a record.
Two Hispanics: OK to hire the one w/o a record.
One white, one black: Must hire the one w/ a record.
One white, one Hispanic: Must hire the one w/ a record.
But what if . . .
One black, one Hispanic: Both no record.
One black, one Hispanic: Both have a record.
This is endless.
Would a black man wait to be rescued by a black fireman or a qualified fireman? How about surgery? Black doctor over more qualified white doctor?
Ridiculous. Thank the Democrats for this foolishness. And, I'm sorry to say, blame the blacks who don't stand up as individuals and continue to play this stupid game.
“I can understand criminal records, but credit problems?”
HR departments are lazy and using the credit report to weed out candidates is an easy way of reducing work load.
They make no distinction between someone who was laid off and someone who openly walks away from debts.
back door to quotas
“If they’re responsible with their own money, they’ll be responsible with the company’s money too.”
Depends on the person. It could be the one with a clean record is just better at hiding it or has been stealing to pay for their bills.
The credit system is horribly abused in this country.
Last time the Left wing had power they legally instituted this racial requirement for thugs. So you had rapists and murderers coming into your home to fix your stove because the companies were not permitted to screen the criminal backgrounds of employees. Thousands upon thousands of Amerians were murdered, raped and pillaged. Children in day care...
We are back to the future and this is called “progress.” Next they will try and re-instate race quotas in prisons.
Was listening to a story on the radio about a lawsuit because a company in the gulf did not do an “adequate background check” on someone who subsequently committed a rape.
Through the Looking glass once again. Bizarro.
Wait. Your’re white and qualified with no priors, a strong education and a 800 credit score...sorry, a minority needs your position via Affirmative Action.
Nothing to see here. Move along, Anglo. Pedro Washington Chu Mohammed has your position.
Sorry!
Liberalism and Government - Rewarding illogical and bad behavior as institutional practice.
Simple solution: Get rid of the EEOC.
“A blanket refusal to hire workers based on criminal records or credit problems can be illegal if it has a disparate impact on racial minorities”
********************************************
The “disparate impact” standards are used against banks in fair lending exams. You really don’t know you have a problem until it is way too late. The banks that may have a problem with this rarely have discrimminatory intent . . . but they are hit with a very heavy hammer if it is a problem.
Liberals are making it almost impossible to conduct banking business with their onerous regulations. The end effect of most of it is to raise the cost of banking products to other customers and to reduce the amount of credit available to consumers . . . the opposite of their stated intent.
Let's sue to eliminate the "deadbeat on alimony payments" since that disproportionately affects men.
What? Marriage is not just between a man and a women, distinguishing between the sexes is antiquated?
Oh, you just meant that "some sexes are more equal than others"...
/sarc>
Cheers!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.