Skip to comments.Employment [criminal background] Checks Fuel Race Complaints
Posted on 06/12/2013 5:31:20 AM PDT by reaganaut1
Federal regulators Tuesday accused two large employers of improperly using criminal-background checks in hiring, the latest salvo in a contentious debate over whether such screening amounts to discrimination against black applicants.
In complaints filed in federal courts in Illinois and South Carolina, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said two companies discount retailer Dollar General Corp. and a U.S. unit of German auto maker BMW AG generally barred potential employees based on the criminal checks, when they should have reviewed each applicant. The commission said the policies had the effect of discriminating against black applicants.
The suits underscore increasing government scrutiny of criminal and credit checks, which are widely used to screen job applicants. Some 92% of employers use criminal-background checks for some or all job openings, according to a 2010 survey by the Society of Human Resource Management.
The EEOC issued guidance to employers last year, shortly after a unit of PepsiCo Inc. agreed to pay $3.1 million and change its screening policy to settle charges of discriminating against blacks by improperly using criminal checks. In some cases, the Pepsi bottling unit screened out applicants who had been arrested but never convicted.
The guidelines don't bar the use of criminal checks, but urge employers to consider the crime, its relation to an applicant's potential job, and how much time that has passed since the conviction. The guidelines also recommend that employers review each case individually, and allow applicants to show why they should be hired despite a conviction.
People convicted of crimes don't get special protections under civil-rights laws, but the EEOC can sue if it believes information about prior convictions is being used to discriminate against a racial or ethnic group.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
It looks more and more like they are trying to make it impossible to be a law-abiding citizen.
However, if you are a non-citizen...
“Federal regulators Tuesday accused two large employers of improperly using criminal-background checks in hiring, “
“The commission said the policies had the effect of discriminating against black applicants. “
This is one of many reasons why no employer should EVER provide any useful feedback to a job applicant. No matter what you say, you can get sued and lose. My most common response, once I learned the ropes, was to tell all applicants that I had decided not to fill the position - and then hire the best applicant for a “different” position that happened to perfectly fit that person’s qualifications. The other path is to only hire based on connections and referrals, which is much more racially and religiously discriminatory in effect than screening out criminals, but it doesn’t get you sued.
>>No one should derive any benefit from being a law-abiding citizen.
In ObamaWorld, work is for suckahs. So is obeying the law. In his world, everyone is a criminal and the decision to prosecute is based on religious and political affiliation.
It must not be working very well because I’ve seen blacks employed at my local Dollar General. Must have slipped through the interview process by “acting white”.
The Feds are hiring. Big time. Make the EEOC hire them. Problem solved.
The commission said the policies had the effect of discriminating against black applicants.
What are you saying?, that Blacks are more likely to have a criminal background? RAAAACCCIST!
> My most common response, once I learned the ropes, was to tell all applicants that I had decided not to fill the position - and then hire the best applicant for a different position that happened to perfectly fit that persons qualifications.
This is the way to do it. Having done thousands of background checks during my career I can say I never did it with any bias or prejudice. It was just another name like all the others. I run the checks and report what I find. That’s it. Someone’s panties got into a knot because they didn’t get hired because of their bad choices. Sorry sucker, if you robbed or assaulted someone and the charges got dismissed because the witness wouldn’t show because they’re afraid of how you’d really assault them now that you’re pissed or if you were wearing a hoodie and the witness couldn’t properly ID you in the courtroom because the defense attorney marched in a lookalike and asked you if they were the peron you saw at the scene of the crime. I get so tired of PC lying and fairness doctrine getting twisted for favoritism.
As an employer you can not do a back ground check on a prospective employee because it would be a 4th Amendment violation.
The NSA can do a back ground check and current activities check on you without violating the 4th Amendment.
Welcome to Obama’s America.
By the way if you hired a individual with a violent criminal past and he harmed a fellow employee who would be held liable?
Same here. The young black fellow who rang me out at Dollar General the other day was one of the nicest young men I’ve met in a long time.
Oh, and according to my wife’s friend who manages one, Dollar General is so desperate to hire ANYONE for part-time positions they aren’t gonna be too picky so long as you aren’t a felon or likely to steal from them.
Management does have a responsibility to protect their other employees from a felon in their midst.
Wow... can’t see that elephant in the room, can they?
Can’t say, “Hey, look! There’s a problem here, and that problem isn’t that someone points out that there’s a problem!”
Why would blacks be disproportionately affected negatively by a criminal background check?
What you suggest is already happening.
The federal workforce is “disproportionate” based on race.
Liberals will always lower the bar for blacks, thus lowering the bar for America, because, in the Liberal mind, blacks are always innocent victims of the illusory institutional racism. The problem, in the Liberal mind, isn’t the high rate of black criminiality, the problem is employers hiring non-criminal employees because that has a disparate impact on blacks. Instead of demanding that the black community higher their standards, Liberals instead demand that employers lower their standards because, in the Liberal mind, any disparate impact is racist.
SC is a right to work state...no unions. That is all the BMW issue is about. Ask anyone who works there...minoritys are probably the majority.
I remember hearing about a case a few years ago where a business hired mostly Spanish speaking (unknown nationalities) employees because of the demographics of the neighborhood.
They used the same method of hiring you note - "Hey - you're a good worker. Do you know anybody who would be a good fit?" They ended up with an almost entirely Spanish speaking work force, who worked hard and made them profitable, then got sued for lack of diversity.
I am thoroughly sick of the word "diversity". It doesn't mean what it claims to mean, and what it claims to mean isn't even a good thing. "Diversity" really means "enough black people and gays to satisfy those who are perpetually offended" - how many professional football or basketball teams get sued for having too few whites and Asians on their rosters? If I had to hire again, I would choose based on ability, as quaint and perhaps even racist as that sounds.