Background Checks On Potential Employees Discriminates Against Blacks…

[Busybody]

Feds Sue Retailer Dollar General And BMW Claiming Their Use Of Background Checks On Potential Employees Discriminates Against Blacks…




Unbelievable.

Via WSJ:


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. PEP -0.18% 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.

 

[Busybody]

so is the gubmint saying

BLACKS are CRIMINALS?

 

[koalabear]

so is the gubmint saying

BLACKS are CRIMINALS?

The government knows what's best.

 

[Busybody]

 

[unregistered]

 

[LiFeNdEaTh]

lol... that's fucked up

 

[Busybody]

 

[Busybody]

Federal Judge Calls Obama Admin’s Claim Background Checks By Employers Are Racist “Laughable,” “Worthless”…




One of those rare instances when sanity prevails.

Via Judicial Watch:


The Obama administration’s claim that criminal background checks discriminate against minority job applicants suffered a lashing from a federal court that found the allegations “laughable,” “distorted,” “cherry-picked,” “worthless” and “an egregious example of scientific dishonesty.”

That kind of whipping from a federal judge has got to hurt though it’s unlikely to deter the administration from spending more taxpayer dollars to file frivolous lawsuits against employers who use the checks to screen job applicants. Judicial Watch wrote about this a few weeks ago when the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency that enforces the nation’s workplace discrimination laws, sued two large companies that screen criminal background records claiming that the checks disproportionately exclude blacks from hire.

That violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, according to the Obama administration, which has pushed hard to deter companies from using criminal background checks to screen job applicants. Of interesting note is that the EEOC conducts criminal background checks as a condition of employment and credit background checks for most of its positions. For some reason, it’s not discriminatory against minorities when the agency does it.

But it is when private businesses utilize the tool because information about prior convictions is being used to discriminate against a racial or ethnic group, according to the EEOC. Thus, the alleged violation of civil rights laws. The argument is laughable, but a federal judge hearing one of the government’s many background-check discrimination cases in Maryland wasn’t amused.

The case involves a family-owned company (Freeman Inc.) that provides services for corporate events, conventions and exhibits. The business has 3,500 full-time and 25,000 part-time and seasonal workers throughout the U.S. Like many companies, Freeman has been a victim of embezzlement, theft, drug use and workplace violence by employees. Background checks on job applicants are essential to better evaluate candidates’ trustworthiness and reliability, according to court documents.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Boxlicker101]

You no longer own your own company. You're a caretaker of an IRS treasure pile and a small segment of the overall state employment program.

The administrative state, governing under Obama's black liberation theology, has decided that because 30% of black males have cycled through the penal system earning felony records, the fate of their employment future cannot be left in the hands of the law abiding segment of the private economy, a segment largely owned and operated by evil white conservatives, who've been recently designated by the IRS as enemies of the state. So the EEOC, a euphemism for that part of our Politburo concerned with the strategic use of race to achieve social Balkanization, has decided to intrude into the decision making process of the free enterprise system and substitute instead some Soviet style guidance.

This is just another facet of what they have been doing since at least 1964.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Federal law has long stated that you cannot systematically disqualify anyone from employment because of a criminal conviction.

You have to consider the position and the crime: You wouldn't want a convicted embezzler in a position of where cash is being managed, you wouldn't want Pedophile101 in a position involving small children, and you certainly wouldn't want Vetteman in a position where he might come into contact with farm animals.

 

[koalabear]

Federal law has long stated that you cannot systematically disqualify anyone from employment because of a criminal conviction.

You have to consider the position and the crime: You wouldn't want a convicted embezzler in a position of where cash is being managed, you wouldn't want Pedophile101 in a position involving small children, and you certainly wouldn't want Vetteman in a position where he might come into contact with farm animals.

You afraid he would shoot your sheep Fatty.