Posts tagged as:

EEOC

Following extensive rumblings of an impending crackdown, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has sued Kaplan, the private education company, over its alleged policy of considering applicants’ credit records in making hiring decisions [Baltimore Sun, George Lenard; earlier here and here]

More from Ted Frank: “Somebody should tell the Transportation Security Administration, which also performs credit checks: they reject job applicants if they have more than $5000 in overdue debt.” And from the same link:

But what’s also driving the push to check credit is fear of lawsuits, [employment attorney Manesh] Rath said, especially in businesses where employees have access to customers’ money or possessions, including the banking, property management, hotel and home health care industries.

…”The employer will have a tough time defending itself,” Rath said, “if it didn’t take the simple measure of doing a background check.”

{ 2 comments }

Jenna Greene at American Lawyer reports on the “ambitious agenda” the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has taken up lately under Chairwoman Jacqueline Berrien, and quotes me as saying the new group in charge of the commission “make the Carter [administration] EEOC look like a Chamber of Commerce operation.” Related: “EEOC reports record charge filings for 2010″ [Hyman]

{ 3 comments }

Many employers find the practice helpfully predictive, but the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is stepping up pressure against it. [WSJ Law Blog, Hyman]

{ 3 comments }

Obesity as such has generally not been included as a disability in the past, so the case may signal a newly activist stance at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC press release, AP]

P.S. As commenters point out, “obesity-as-perceived-disability” would be more precise. The law’s recent extension to complainants “perceived as” disabled is proving, just as advocates hoped and defendants feared, to be a major engine of expansion of legal coverage to complainants who in the past could not claim disabled status. More: John Bratt (recalling “Simpsons” episode).

{ 20 comments }

Christopher Woodson says it would violate his religion to comply with a Waynesboro, Va. moving company’s haircut policy, so he’s appealed to the EEOC, which has filed a suit on his behalf. [Amanda Hess, TBD] More: Jon Hyman.

{ 6 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 }

New at Point of Law

by Walter Olson on February 20, 2010

Things you’re missing if you aren’t checking out my other site:

{ 4 comments }

So asks Charlie Roberts, who ran the testing division for the Chicago Police Department from 1995 to 1999, upon learning that the city is simply going to give up on testing because of the threat of lawsuits. (Fran Spielman and Frank Main, “Police may scrap entrance exam”, Chicago Sun-Times, Jan. 6.) The problem is exacerbated by the EEOC’s Four-Fifths Rule—of dubious constitutionality after Ricci—which holds that any selection process that results in a selection rate for any race, sex, or ethnic group less than four-fifths of the most successful group is “adverse impact” that “constitutes discrimination unless justified.” 41 CFR § 60-3.

{ 6 comments }

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 }

Disabled rights groups are happy so far, while employers fret, reports Jeffrey Hirsch at Workplace Prof.

{ 3 comments }

October 8 roundup

by Walter Olson on October 8, 2009

  • Judge rules Segways not necessary to accommodation at Disney World, throws out settlement negotiated by disabled rights group [Bloomberg, WSJ Law Blog; background here and here] More: OnPoint News (disputing claims of Disney victory).
  • “Too Many Lawyers or Too Many Laws?” [Somin, Volokh, on Scalia; earlier]
  • More on the $500K award to woman who escaped first WTC bombing and broke ankle ten days later [John Hochfelder in comments]
  • $3 million race bias suit against Martha Stewart Living magazine seems to have followed protest over home furnishing item often described as “coolie-hat” lampshade [NY Post]
  • Skyboxes for the mayor and city councilors who approved the stadium — and this is ethically OK? [Coyote]
  • Getting kind of meta: “Lawyer Says Lawyer Defamed Him in Press Release About Defamation Suit” [NLJ]
  • “Free credit score” firm backs off legal effort to identify critical blogger — but who’s this they’ve identified as their foe? [Paul Levy, Consumer Law & Policy, Felix Salmon, earlier]
  • EEOC says Catholic college “discriminated against women by removing coverage for prescription contraceptives from [its] health insurance plan” [Gaston, N.C. Gazette via LaborProf]

{ 2 comments }

May 14 roundup

by Walter Olson on May 14, 2009

{ 2 comments }

Even they can’t comply with all this stuff, you know. Hans Bader at CEI Open Market has more, as does Jonathan Adler @ Volokh.

And so Nicolai Grushevski of Corpus Christi, Texas is off to court with a class action suit against restaurant chain Hooters of America, known for its buxom serving staff (complaint, PDF, courtesy CourthouseNews.com). Legal pressure on the winks-and-wings purveyor to hire male waitstaff is nothing new: see this post and this one on the long crusade to that effect by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

{ 31 comments }