Washington – Can Business Owners Be Sued for NOT Hiring Criminals?

    4

    Washington – In April, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission signaled that it would begin to crack down on employers who use the criminal histories of job applicants to discriminate against them illegally.

    Join our WhatsApp group

    Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email


    But to judge from conversations with business owners, labor lawyers and human resources consultants, many small businesses had no idea there was anything wrong with practices like a blanket ban on hiring anybody with a criminal record.

    “Many companies that size don’t have an H.R. person and get minimal education about compliance issues,” said Laurence E. Stuart, a labor lawyer in Houston. Similarly, Brian Hamilton, who with his wife owns four car dealerships in Nebraska that employ about 160 people, said, “We have tests that all of our managers take that keep them up to date on labor rules. But I was not aware of that one.”

    The notion that using criminal records in employment decisions could constitute discrimination has been government policy since at least the 1970s. The E.E.O.C. has in the past issued policy statements, called enforcement guidance, about how employers may use criminal records without running afoul of the Civil Rights Act, but in April the agency published new enforcement guidance.

    The new guidance “consolidates and supersedes” those earlier policies, the commission said in an accompanying question-and-answer document. And while the underlying theory of what actions constitute discrimination appears not to have changed, labor lawyers say the new policy requires companies to establish procedures to show they are not using criminal records to discriminate by race or national origin.

    Read full article at NY Times


    Listen to the VINnews podcast on:

    iTunes | Spotify | Google Podcasts | Stitcher | Podbean | Amazon

    Follow VINnews for Breaking News Updates


    Connect with VINnews

    Join our WhatsApp group


    4 Comments
    Most Voted
    Newest Oldest
    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments
    curious
    curious
    11 years ago

    Ridiculous.

    11 years ago

    The EEOC is insane; if I as an employer, discover that a job applicant has a proclivity to engage in violence, am I supposed to hire him? If he assaults other employees, or worse, I can be sued by the victims for knowlingly hiring a violent person. Similarly, as I supposed to hire someone who has abused drugs in the past? He/she will call in sick, and present medical problems, because of their drug and/or alcoholic addiction. Also, if I discover someone who has stolen money in the past, should I hire him, so he/she can steal from my business? Also, am I supposed to hire a known sex offender? Please! All employers should do a thorough background check on job applicants, including fingerprinting them. The EEOC has a political agenda to enforce, at the expense of employers.

    Nobody
    Nobody
    11 years ago

    In New York it is worse than this. It is not illegal because it has a disparate impact. It is illegal on its own. The only reason you can refuse to hire someone is if the criminal record is relevant to the job (Embezzler to count cash, Child Molestor to watch children). Refusing to hire a felon just because they are a felon in New York is the same problem as refusing to hire a black person just because they are black.

    Avreich1
    Avreich1
    11 years ago

    I live in south London, where I manage the provision of all domestic and facility-related services in a hospice for the dying. I recently advertised for an entry-level general assistant. The selection process decided on was that each short-listed candidate would be interviewed informally by each head of department that the successful applicant with whom the successful applicant would have to work.

    One of the applicants had recently been released from prison after serving 8 years for armed robbery. He was quite open about his past – in fact, he told each of the people who interviewed him.

    On balance, he was probably the best men we saw for that job, but I felt unable to hire him. This was NOT because of his criminal record, but rather because, even at the interview stage, too many people knew of his history.

    He would never have been trusted – and all because he was too candid. That is a great pity because the story will probably be repeated, again and again, and the man will unfortunately slip back into his old ways.