Controversy regarding EEOC Guidelines related to Criminal Background Checks

[HenryReardon]

Refuse to hire a convicted felon? The EEOC will sue you.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...630786614.html


If a background check discloses a criminal offense, the EEOC expects a company to do an intricate "individualized assessment" that will somehow prove that it has a "business necessity" not to hire the ex-offender (or that his offense disqualifies him for a specific job). Former EEOC General Counsel Donald Livingston, in testimony in December to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, warned that employers could be considered guilty of "race discrimination if they choose law abiding applicants over applicants with criminal convictions" unless they conduct a comprehensive analysis of the ex-offender's recent life history.

Evidently Obama really doesn't care about jobs. If he did, his EEOC wouldn't be pursuing actions that clearly discourage hiring.

Funny how these government bureaucrats lose sight of the fact that business owners have, or should have, an absolute right to hire, or choose not to hire, anyone.

[HenryReardon]

[Quoted Post: Removed]

[Text: Removed]
A man twice convicted for theft is not a suitable candidate for the position security guard.

[Benvolio]

[Quote Post: Removed]

Remember, that if the employee commits an assault or other crime in the job, the employer can be held liable. Or, if he harasses a female. Just another good reason to send jobs to India where they do not treat employers as public enemies.

[tigerfan482]

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/arrest_conviction.cfm
Please for the love of God read what you are writing about before commenting on it. Some WSJ's opinion piece contributor's interpretation of what it says doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

I was going to point out some excerpts, but the entire thing contradicts what this guy said, so just read it and see what it means. They give plenty of examples on how it applies.

[bankside]

They would not at all be guilty of race discrimination. They would be "guilty" of discrimination against people on the basis of prior criminal conviction, which is permissible in some jurisdictions, and not in others.

[Rolyo85]

Remember, that if the employee commits an assault or other crime in the job, the employer can be held liable. Or, if he harasses a female. Just another good reason to send jobs to India where they do not treat employers as public enemies.

So you DO think that they should be branded for life then?

And yeah, they don't treat them like criminals in India, they treat them like cattle...

[opinterph]

Refuse to hire a convicted felon? The EEOC will sue you.

I read the WSJ article by James Bovard. It appears to me that he may be distorting the EEOC Guidelines.

It would be helpful if you provide links to the cases he used in the article as illustrations. Scanning the Guidelines, it doesn’t appear to me that the new revision presents a significant change from prior periods. I encourage you to review the link tigerfan482 provided to the Guidelines (replicated below) before drawing conclusions or publishing them as fact.

Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

[Centexfarmer]

Remember, that if the employee commits an assault or other crime in the job, the employer can be held liable. Or, if he harasses a female. Just another good reason to send jobs to India where they do not treat employers as public enemies.

Or "Trial Lawyers" who've been stripped of holding those lawyers accountable through "tort reform."

My Gawd!

Are you incapable of even acknowledging both sides of a debate, or are you clearly just one sides in all of your arguments?

[csb999]

quite practically since The War on Drugs I would think a very large minority of any group of employable males will consistently have a drug-possession charge or two . I know Canada a lot of respectable middle-class middle-aged businessmen who cannot cross the border for that reason . That anything like that would affect employability is a little bit bizarre .

[csb999]

Moreover numbers US I think something like 40 % of black men have one conviction . So any legislation like this would affect that group maybe four times as much .

[opinterph]

... any legislation like this would affect that group maybe four times as much .

I don't think the law has been amended recently (maybe 1991?). The controversy introduced in the opening post seems to involve the EEOC's enforcement policies and interpretations relative to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

[maxpowr9]

So you DO think that they should be branded for life then?

And yeah, they don't treat them like criminals in India, they treat them like cattle...

You would think like socialist Massachusetts that Chicago would be similar. In fact, if I were to serve an intoxicated person an alcoholic beverage, the bar I work at/do books for, would be held liable if that person caused an incident of any sort and not the person. That is the reason we will card anyone regardless of their age. We have extremely strict guidelines as to what constitutes a valid license. Many bars in Boston have colluded to share these same strict guidelines as to not lose their liquor license. How many other states differentiate between a typical "ID card" and a "liquor ID card"? I think Rhode Island is the only other state to do so.

[CowboyBob]

Well this is really stretching it.

Love the dramatic thread title: "Obama's War On Business Continues". Wasn't aware the EEOC was run by Barack Obama.

Oh wait, the office is run by Jacqueline A. Berrien.

Employer should have a right to hire or not to hire anyone they choose? Okay... I'm an employer and I won't hire you because you're black, disabled, homosexual, left handed, belong to a religion I don't like.... and no whining about it. I'm following Reardon's advice.

BTW, you can thank Daddy Bush for signing this into law.

Oh wait.... it's all Obama's fault.

[T-Rexx]

WSJ used to be quite a reputable publication.

Amazing how Rupert Murdoch has destroyed it.

[Benvolio]

Or "Trial Lawyers" who've been stripped of holding those lawyers accountable through "tort reform."

My Gawd!

Are you incapable of even acknowledging both sides of a debate, or are you clearly just one sides in all of your arguments?

You should have noticed that in this one line, I am the only one who has presented the other side, which is that the employer is held liable for the acts of employees in the course of their employment. So, while the government threatens the employer for not hiring criminals, it holds them liable for their violent acts. You berate me because I presented that other side. Who else did?
If you haven't noticed, many employers do sent jobs overseas, and it is not because of wages. It is all the other unreasonable burdens. Have you read through the regulations about this problem? How can an employer be expected to know and follow all that stuff at its peril?

[HenryReardon]

Please for the love of God read what you are writing about before commenting on it. Some WSJ's opinion piece contributor's interpretation of what it says doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

I was going to point out some excerpts, but the entire thing contradicts what this guy said, so just read it and see what it means. They s.

The EEOC guidlines are in carefully phrased government-speak, but a careful read of them reveals that they do NOT contradict the WSJ piece. Not even close. Moreover, those guidelines were issued in April of 2012.

The very idea that the government can force a business to hire someone they don't wish to hire (no matter what the reason) is repugnant to any rational individual.

[tigerfan482]

The EEOC guidlines are in carefully phrased government-speak, but a careful read of them reveals that they do NOT contradict the WSJ piece. Not even close. Moreover, those guidelines were issued in April of 2012.

The very idea that the government can force a business to hire someone they don't wish to hire (no matter what the reason) is repugnant to any rational individual.

You have got to be shitting me. Those were the EXACT guidelines that "article" was referring to. It also was not in "carefully phrased government-speak" unless that's what you call English. They also sound nothing like the author of that "article" interpreted them as.

Please, you obviously didn't read through the guidelines. There is nothing in there forcing companies to hire anyone. They are guidelines on what they suggest companies do in order to avoid violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Again - because I can't state this too much - go read the guidelines so you know what you're talking about.

[Benvolio]

You have got to be shitting me. Those were the EXACT guidelines that "article" was referring to. It also was not in "carefully phrased government-speak" unless that's what you call English. They also sound nothing like the author of that "article" interpreted them as.

Please, you obviously didn't read through the guidelines. There is nothing in there forcing companies to hire anyone. They are guidelines on what they suggest companies do in order to avoid violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Again - because I can't state this too much - go read the guidelines so you know what you're talking about.

Right. You don't have to hire anyone. BUT if do hire someone, you better hire a criminal or you will be in trouble. BUT
if YOUR criminal hurts someone, you will be liable to the victim and his (Democat, nudge, nudge, wink, wink) lawyer, for millions.

[tigerfan482]

Right. You don't have to hire anyone. BUT if do hire someone, you better hire a criminal or you will be in trouble. BUT
if YOUR criminal hurts someone, you will be liable to the victim and his (Democat, nudge, nudge, wink, wink) lawyer, for millions.

You're in the same boat as ol' Hank up there. Please read the guidelines (not some WSJ contributor's interpretation or some made up fantasy guidelines you wrote in your head) and tell me where it says those who don't hire people with a criminal record will get in trouble. Also, I'm curious as to your point about companies being liable for their employees' actions. If the employee is acting in an official capacity for a company, the company can be held liable no matter who the employee or what their background is. If they are on their own time, the company wouldn't be held liable no matter who the employee os what their background is. The point being is that I don't see how this thread figures in at all with the point you're making.

[opinterph]

This thread is now designated “On-Topic.”

The topic is presented in the opening post and may be expanded to include any discussion that is reasonably related to hiring guidelines promoted by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that may be confusing or arguably harmful to business, but most particularly stipulations relating to hiring practices associated with persons who are convicted of a criminal offense. General discussion relative to the approval or disapproval of the incumbent President are not directly related to EEOC guidelines and should be presented as a separate topic or included in other threads, as appropriate.

[JayHawk]

I think in an environment where collective bargaining is viewed with suspicion it is good to have EEOC to arbitrate when employers cross boundaries.

If you have a felony charge it affects your life and it should not be changed. An EEOC could choose to try and fight the matter and allow a court to decide. But the bottom line is that employers are permitted to decide on who they hire. I have both hired and rejected felons. It really just depends on the circumstance. So while people would like to think the world should be entirely objective reality is quite subjective.