Sean Higgins, Washington Examiner:
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission told a district court that it should not have to reveal its own policies regarding criminal background checks because that information is not relevant to the discrimination cases it files against private companies.
Background from Jon Hyman, Ohio Employer’s Law Blog:
This argument [advanced by automaker BMW, whose policies the EEOC is challenging] is not novel. At least two other federal courts have compelled the EEOC to turn over similar information in similar cases (here and here). The words of one of those courts is particularly instructive:
If Plaintiff uses hiring practices similar to those used by Defendant, this fact may show the appropriateness of those practices, particularly because Plaintiff is the agency fighting unfair hiring practices.… Further, Defendant is not required to accept Plaintiff’s position in its briefs that the two entities’ practices are dissimilar – Defendant is entitled to discovery on this issue as it relates to Defendant’s defense.
Intellectual dishonesty is offensive. If the EEOC has policies that screen-out certain felons, then the EEOC should not publish enforcement guidance that limits this practice, and should not pursue litigation that challenges this practice.
And a Sept. 17 House subcommittee hearing on EEOC adventurism, reported at Employee Screen, includes this on possible reforms:
Proposed legislation discussed at the hearing included H.R. 4959, the “EEOC Transparency and Accountability Act”, which would require the EEOC to maintain up-to-date information on its website regarding charges and actions brought by the EEOC; H.R. 5422, “Litigation Oversight Act of 2014”, which would require the EEOC to approve by a majority vote to begin or intervene in litigation involving multiple plaintiffs or systemic discrimination; and H.R. 5423, “Certainty in Enforcement Act of 2014”, which would protect employers from EEOC action in cases that specifically involve criminal background checks required by state or local law. …
[The subcommittee chair, Michigan Republican Rep. Tim] Walberg noted that 19 stakeholders representing a wide variety of constituents signed a letter supporting all three bills, which included the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS), SHRM, and other professional, healthcare, retail and food service organizations.
2 Comments
The State of Georgia has been permanantly revoking the licenses of mortgage companies that employ any convicted felon in any capacity, and requiring annual updates of background checks. Imagine being stuck between the EEOC and this regulator.
From a recent press release:
“Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 7-1-1004(h), Georgia mortgage brokers and mortgage lenders are prohibited from employing convicted felons. Department Rule 80-11-4-4.08 further provides that no person employed by or directing the affairs of any licensee may be a convicted felon and that it is the licensee’s responsibility to ensure compliance. Failure to comply is a revocable offense and subjects the licensee to a fine of $5,000 per felon. ”
See https://dbf.georgia.gov/press-releases/2014-10-03/sun-west-mortgage-company-inc-cerritos-california-ordered-surrender
Again, this is about the EEOC changing the law when it hasn’t changed. Large employers are changing how they deal with such checks b/c they can’t afford to fight an agency with a blank check to bring such baseless garbage.