The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is said to be readying policy guidance aimed at curbing employers’ consideration of criminal and credit records in hiring. [WSJ editorial]
Posts tagged as:
criminal records and hiring
One of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s current big projects — making it legally hazardous for employers to check job applicants’ criminal records — could actually backfire, according to research cited by some members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights [Caroline May, Daily Caller]:
Civil Rights Commissioners Peter Kirsanow, Gail Heriot and Todd Gaziano pointed to research from economists Harry Holzer and Stephen Rafael and public policy professor Michael Stoll, published in the Journal of Law and Economics, which showed that employers with access to background checks are actually more likely to hire African Americans, especially African American men, than those without access to that informaion.
“Their results suggest that, in the absence of criminal background checks, some employers discriminate statistically against black men and/or those with weak employment records,” the commissioners pointed out in their letter to the EEOC.
- “He coulda been a credenza”: actor’s estate sues over unauthorized “Brando” furniture line [The Daily via Balko] “Motorcycle Gang Sues Over ‘My Boyfriend’s A Hell’s Angel’ T-Shirt” [CBS-LA]
- EEOC decries employer discrimination on the basis of applicants’ criminal records, recommends curbing background checks [WSJ Law Blog, FastCasual, Hyman, Greenfield] Bill in San Francisco would make felons a protected class in jobs, housing [Fox]
- Why are Obama officials intent on reducing due process protections for those accused of campus sexual misconduct? [Silverglate, WSJ; Philadelphia Magazine, Samantha Harris/NY Post, Ciamarella, Daily Caller (AAUP objects to plan); links at SAVE] A contrasting view [Roderick Hills, Prawfsblawg]
- 9th Circuit rejects Bluetooth class action settlement to which Ted Frank’s CCAF objected [Fisher, NLJ, Frank]
- Lawyer who represents jogger in product liability suit expects to file more actions claiming Skechers sneakers responsible for falls [BLT]
- Part of a balanced breakfast: “Why the lawsuit against Nutella is bunk” [Nadia Arumugam, Slate] Update: Judge denies motion to dismiss [Russell Jackson]
- Experts agree it’s OK to nominate Overlawyered for an ABA “100 Best Legal Blogs” slot here.
{ 4 comments }
Class action lawyers are waiting by the phone. [Michael Fox]
{ 7 comments }
Prepare to meet the EEOC’s wrath [AP/Law.com]. The topic is not new; I wrote about it for Reason quite a while back. More: Julie DelCour, Tulsa World.
{ 11 comments }
- Charged $21K at purported “gentleman’s” club: “Plaintiff Has No Recollection of What Transpired in the Private Room” [Lowering the Bar]
- Census Bureau sued for discriminating against applicants based on criminal, arrest records [Clegg, NRO] Class action against Accenture for screening job applicants based on criminal records [Jon Hyman]
- Virtual indeed: “Virtual Freedom” author wants government to regulate Google’s search engine [ConcurOp]
- Contingency fees for public sector lawyering could take California down dangerous path [CJAC]
- “Harvard Law vs. free inquiry: Dean Martha Minow flunks the test” [Peter Berkowitz, Weekly Standard]
- There’ll always be an AAJ: seminar for trial lawyers on “Injuries Without Evidence” [ShopFloor] More: The Briefcase.
- Congress may expand law to enable more age-bias suits [BLT]
- “FTC Closes First Blogger Endorsement Investigation” [Balasubramani, Spam Notes; Citizen Media Law]
{ 1 comment }
A federal agency once famed for its anti-employer zeal is quickly returning to an activist stance. [Workplace Prof; my earlier take on the criminal-record issue, in Reason]
{ 3 comments }
But Quebec courts have ruled that’s no reason Jean-Alix Miguel should lose his job as a teacher at a Montreal vocational school. Miguel spent seven years in prison for the murder. (Julia Kilpatrick, “Law says convicted killers can teach and practise law — but experts disagree”, Canwest/Victoria (B.C.) Times Colonist, Jul. 13)(via Wingless).
{ 13 comments }
Per the NLJ, it’s employers’ lucky day:
The federal government has launched an initiative aimed at cracking down on discriminatory hiring practices in the workplace — a program that could land unsuspecting employers in court, employment attorneys are warning….Specifically, the EEOC will focus on hiring decisions that are based on names, arrest and conviction records, employment and personality tests and credit scores — all of which may disparately impact people of color….
Many states have laws that restrict employers from asking about or considering criminal records when hiring. The EEOC holds that if an employer denies a job to an applicant because he or she has a criminal record, it could be considered discrimination if the person is a minority.
For more on efforts to keep employers from taking applicants’ criminal records into account, see Feb. 13 and links from there (cross-posted from Point of Law).
{ 16 comments }
As we’ve had occasion to mention before (Sept. 24, 1999; Reason, Dec. 1999; Jan. 17, 2001), the supposedly progressive position in employment law has for many years been that employers should not be at liberty to take into account job applicants’ criminal records; the only conceded exception comes when a past conviction is closely related to a high risk of serious re-offense, as when an embezzler released from prison seeks a job handling money at a bank. Very much in the spirit of that progressive stance, Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino “authorized a new policy two years ago eliminating questions about criminal convictions on all city job applications and dispensing with criminal background checks for applicants for jobs that don’t involve working with children or the elderly or accessing residents’ homes.”
How well did this new policy work out, you ask? Well, when Joseph M. MacDonald, a 26-year-old resident of South Boston, applied for a job with the Boston public works department, city officials never checked his criminal record because of the new “second-chance” policy. So they never found out about his long rap sheet (three drug convictions, seven drivers’ license suspensions) until Feb. 3, when police say MacDonald, riding his city snowplow, ran down a 64-year-old woman as she crossed a street, then fled the scene. (Donovan Slack, “Hit-run suspect had long record”, Boston Globe, Feb. 7; “Records show history of offenses”, Feb. 7).
So a hard lesson has now been learned, right? You must be kidding. Although the city has admitted that it slipped up in not checking MacDonald’s driving status, Mayor Menino and one of his human resources deputies continue to defend the broader policy on ignoring criminal records (“The mayor believes firmly in giving people a second chance,” said a spokeswoman after the incident.) And both Menino and newly elected Gov. Deval Patrick intend to press ahead with a previously announced plan to limit private employers’ access to job applicants’ criminal records, the better to enforce those obligatory second chances. (Andrea Estes, “Patrick seeks to limit background checks”, Boston Globe, Feb. 12)(via No Looking Backwards). More: Coyote Blog.
{ 3 comments }
