U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment > Job Search
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 11-11-2015, 12:54 PM
 
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, originally from SF Bay Area
29,764 posts, read 54,390,602 times
Reputation: 31056

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by joe from dayton View Post
The short answer, at the federal level, is "yes" as long as they are in compliance with federal case law.

At the state level, it depends on what state you are in.

You need to wait to get a response and go from there.
This is correct. In your state of Texas, the employer must tell the applicant why they failed, give the applicant a copy of the report, and let them know the name and address of the service that furnished the information.They also have an odd law that limits what they can look for in background checks for jobs paying under $75k. There is no distinction between arrests, pending arrests and convictions, all will appear on your report in Texas. There is also no distinction between misdemeanors and felonies, all will be listed. You can dispute the report if wrong, but there is no law requiring the employer to accept an explanation and hire you if the report is factual. It's really up to them. If it's a really minor violation such as vandalism when egging a house on Halloween 6 years ago, common sense says that it should not prevent a person from being hired, but it could. A formal complaint with the EEOC could be made, especially if the candidate is a protected minority. The current trend in many states and federally is to prevent racial discrimination disguised as the criminal background check.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-13-2015, 08:13 PM
 
162 posts, read 134,190 times
Reputation: 196
Ok. I received a response back on my background check.

The HR recruiter who I am working with called me and said that they received the information that Hire Right provided them. He said that I "did not meet standards". Then he asked if there was anything I needed to say. I started to tell him that when I was filling out the information that Hire Right requested on their online form and there was no where to disclose any criminal records and explain/elaborate on the circumstances of my record. He continued to explain that I could dispute the criminal record by filling out some form and to contact Hire Right directly. I then just directly asked him "so what are you trying to say?" to see if he was going to just say that they are rescinding the job offer but he didn't and restated that I "didn't meet standards". So I figured with that statement I still had a chance.

So I proceed to tell him the whole story and in a nutshell told him what occurred, how I messed up, what prosecutor charged me with and the offer of deferred adjudication, how I have completed everything that is required of me and waiting for dismissal, how it has impacted me, how I learned my lesson, and ready to move on with my life in a positive direction. He seemed understanding of it but proceed to reiterate that I "did not meet standards" and for me to fill out the form to dispute the records that Hire Right provided and he would do what he can to help me out. I think he was saying "did not meet standards" because that is some type of company protocol because it was such an unnatural response to repeat over and over again.

Several hours later I receive and email from another person at this company that was forwarded an email from my HR recruiter who I previously was talking to repeating the same information and provided me a number to reach out to Hire Right. So at this point I contact Hire Right and they can't do anything because what they provided is true just like I told the HR recruiter.

So then I put together a detailed email responding back to both parties explaining everything. I reiterated the fact that I wouldn't be a threat to the company and offered to request references of my prior employer who was fully aware of my record and still continued my employment and my probation officer who would be a very supportive reference for me. I even went to provide the information on a program called fidelity bonding offered by the Texas Workforce Commission (Fidelity Bonding | Texas Workforce Commission) that provides a $5,000 insurance coverage for 6-month free of charge to the employer for employees that helps at-risk job applicants get and keep a job. This protects the employer against employee acts of dishonesty such as larceny, embezzlement, and theft. This is for individuals with records of arrest, probation, or any police record.

I have done everything in my power to not loss this job offer because of this so I am hoping that it all works out for me. If they rescind my offer I will carry this on with the EEOC as I am in the minority group that Hemlock140 said in his statement.


Tell me what you think? If this would help sway them into giving me a chance or not? If they do rescind the offer would it be prudent of me to state that I will be consulting the EEOC on this matter?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2015, 08:32 PM
 
9,253 posts, read 11,806,344 times
Reputation: 14509
Just because you are in a protected class does not mean EEOC will accept that your were denied employment based on that protected class. All the company has to do is show that they treat all similarly situated candidates the same in regard to criminal background. Once the company provides that to EEOC, they will not go any further. EEOC is concerned about companies that use criminal backgrounds as a method to exclude those in a protected class from employment.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2015, 09:25 PM
 
9,778 posts, read 16,966,691 times
Reputation: 18389
Contacting the background company is pointless unless you are disputing the accuracy of their report.

You can file an EEOC complaint if you want. We simply do not have enough information to make a call on that. Saying you are going to file a EEOC complaint isn't going to phase them; they will simply send a memo to legal and HR letting them know you said you were going to file a complaint.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2015, 01:01 AM
 
162 posts, read 134,190 times
Reputation: 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabrrita View Post
Just because you are in a protected class does not mean EEOC will accept that your were denied employment based on that protected class. All the company has to do is show that they treat all similarly situated candidates the same in regard to criminal background. Once the company provides that to EEOC, they will not go any further. EEOC is concerned about companies that use criminal backgrounds as a method to exclude those in a protected class from employment.
So how would suggest I know if I do not file a compliant?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2015, 01:05 AM
 
162 posts, read 134,190 times
Reputation: 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by joe from dayton View Post
Contacting the background company is pointless unless you are disputing the accuracy of their report.

You can file an EEOC complaint if you want. We simply do not have enough information to make a call on that. Saying you are going to file a EEOC complaint isn't going to phase them; they will simply send a memo to legal and HR letting them know you said you were going to file a complaint.
Yes, I agree. I did contact Hire Right and they said that exact same thing. I guess HR didn't know this or are playing dumb to shake me off and just force me to walk away from my offer.

I refuse to walk away from a $95,000/year job on a single arrest record without a fight. I have a wife and child to think about and am willing to do anything to protect them.

I was even thinking to consult with a local Dallas employment lawyer to see my options if this comes to me losing this offer.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2015, 09:12 PM
 
9,253 posts, read 11,806,344 times
Reputation: 14509
Quote:
Originally Posted by susman View Post
I was even thinking to consult with a local Dallas employment lawyer to see my options if this comes to me losing this offer.
You really have no rights in this type of situation. An employer is free to use any legitimate, non Title VII discriminatory reason to not offer you a job. Being on probation is certainly a reason not to offer a person a job especially if were talking a advanced position versus a short order cook.

You will need to show EEOC that it was not your criminal background check that was the reason for not being hired but your protected class. Your prospective employer only needs to show that they did not hire you because you were on probation and they do not hire ANYONE for that position with a criminal background. When criminal background checks are involved both discrimination based on a protected class or based on a disparate impact is a pretty darn high bar to climbover.

Once again, just because you are a member of a protected class and was not hired due to a failed criminal background check does not mean it was even remotely discrimination. (although you can get a serious case of blacklisted if you file a bogus complaint).
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2015, 11:53 PM
 
162 posts, read 134,190 times
Reputation: 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabrrita View Post
You really have no rights in this type of situation. An employer is free to use any legitimate, non Title VII discriminatory reason to not offer you a job. Being on probation is certainly a reason not to offer a person a job especially if were talking a advanced position versus a short order cook.

You will need to show EEOC that it was not your criminal background check that was the reason for not being hired but your protected class. Your prospective employer only needs to show that they did not hire you because you were on probation and they do not hire ANYONE for that position with a criminal background. When criminal background checks are involved both discrimination based on a protected class or based on a disparate impact is a pretty darn high bar to climbover.

Once again, just because you are a member of a protected class and was not hired due to a failed criminal background check does not mean it was even remotely discrimination. (although you can get a serious case of blacklisted if you file a bogus complaint).

I don't think you fully understand the state laws as it is outlined for the EEOC.

Job References

EEOC Issues with Background Checks

"Sometimes employers will turn down an applicant as the result of a credit check or an unfavorable report on an applicant's criminal history. Aside from the FCRA concerns noted above, an employer needs to worry about the potential EEOC issues involved. Basically, EEOC takes the position that because statistical evidence shows that a higher percentage of minorities than non-minorities has had financial or criminal history problems in the past, taking an adverse job action based upon such factors has an disproportionate and unfair impact (in EEOC terms, "disparate impact") upon minorities, and the burden will be on the employer to show a legitimate, job-related reason for taking the adverse job action. EEOC expects employers, prior to turning someone down for a job or promotion who has had an unfavorable credit or criminal history report, to do an individualized job-relatedness determination. That means that before turning down someone for a job on the basis of a credit report or criminal history problem, the employer must be able to show that it considered the specific problem and determined that it would not be a good idea or prudent course of action to hire that specific person for a particular position."


EEOC Website - Background Checks - This has good explanations for what employers need to know, what job applicants need to know, and difference between using arrest and conviction.


EEOC Website - Title VII and Enforcement Guidance - Questions and Answers About the EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII

"The Enforcement Guidance explains how the EEOC analyzes the “job related and consistent with business necessity” standard for criminal record exclusions, and provides hypothetical examples interpreting the standard. There are two circumstances in which the Commission believes employers may consistently meet the “job related and consistent with business necessity” defense: The employer validates the criminal conduct exclusion for the position in question in light of the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (if there is data or analysis about criminal conduct as related to subsequent work performance or behaviors); or The employer develops a targeted screen considering at least the nature of the crime, the time elapsed, and the nature of the job (the three factors identified by the court in Green v. Missouri Pacific Railroad, 549 F.2d 1158 (8th Cir. 1977)). The employer’s policy then provides an opportunity for an individualized assessment for those people identified by the screen, to determine if the policy as applied is job related and consistent with business necessity. (Although Title VII does not require individualized assessment in all circumstances, the use of a screen that does not include individualized assessment is more likely to violate Title VII.)."


EEOC Website - Enforcement Guidance - Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII
Full explanation regarding the use of arrest or conviction records in employment decisions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.


After throughly researching all the material I have discovered that there is much more to it than what you all are assuming. But thank you anyways for the all your inputs. It allowed to be able to look at this issue from all the angles and strength my case if they were to rescind my offer simply due to the background check.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2015, 11:25 AM
 
9,253 posts, read 11,806,344 times
Reputation: 14509
I'm in an industry where everyone from the janitor to myself have to undergo extensive criminal and security background checks. We deal routinely in providing criminal background checks as well as having them conducted in order for individuals and/or whole companies to work with us and us for them. Part of our government contract requirement was for everyone dealing in any aspect of the background portion of hiring individuals attend a mandated training course on background checks and security clearances.

You are making some classic mistakes in your approach to this. You are currently on PROBATION for a CRIMINAL Act. That is not subject to any debate as far as the State of Texas is concerned. Once you successfully complete that probation, your charges may be dropped and you can get your record cleared. but until that happens, you are what you are. Employers have a right to refuse to hire an individual who they feel does not meet their corporate standards when it comes to criminal background. So long as they have a legitimate business need or requirement and their actions are based solely on that need and nothing else, they are within their legal rights.

Now where this is taking an ugly turn is you have decided that just because you are a member of a protected class (everyone is a member of a protected class) you feel that the use of your background can't be a legitimate reasons for not being hired. Oh No, it can't be because I'm currently viewed as a Criminal on Probation, and the job may be of a level where these things are taken very seriously, no, you are pulling the old discrimination card out of your back pocket and waving it as an excuse for what is happening.

You have eluded that this is not just some janitors job but higher up on the company food chain; maybe senior management, an executive or even just someone in a sensitive position where your character plays a big part. But, to you it's because of your protected class. That's pretty sad isn't it to had gone fishing for that route. After all, I don;t recall that you were even aware of such a thing until it was mentioned. Your focus was on if the charges were a conviction or not. Now it's an EEOC thing.

Pulling this discrimination ploy only sets back legitimate discrimination issues. SHAME!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2015, 12:26 PM
 
162 posts, read 134,190 times
Reputation: 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabrrita View Post
I'm in an industry where everyone from the janitor to myself have to undergo extensive criminal and security background checks. We deal routinely in providing criminal background checks as well as having them conducted in order for individuals and/or whole companies to work with us and us for them. Part of our government contract requirement was for everyone dealing in any aspect of the background portion of hiring individuals attend a mandated training course on background checks and security clearances.

You are making some classic mistakes in your approach to this. You are currently on PROBATION for a CRIMINAL Act. That is not subject to any debate as far as the State of Texas is concerned. Once you successfully complete that probation, your charges may be dropped and you can get your record cleared. but until that happens, you are what you are. Employers have a right to refuse to hire an individual who they feel does not meet their corporate standards when it comes to criminal background. So long as they have a legitimate business need or requirement and their actions are based solely on that need and nothing else, they are within their legal rights.

Now where this is taking an ugly turn is you have decided that just because you are a member of a protected class (everyone is a member of a protected class) you feel that the use of your background can't be a legitimate reasons for not being hired. Oh No, it can't be because I'm currently viewed as a Criminal on Probation, and the job may be of a level where these things are taken very seriously, no, you are pulling the old discrimination card out of your back pocket and waving it as an excuse for what is happening.

You have eluded that this is not just some janitors job but higher up on the company food chain; maybe senior management, an executive or even just someone in a sensitive position where your character plays a big part. But, to you it's because of your protected class. That's pretty sad isn't it to had gone fishing for that route. After all, I don;t recall that you were even aware of such a thing until it was mentioned. Your focus was on if the charges were a conviction or not. Now it's an EEOC thing.

Pulling this discrimination ploy only sets back legitimate discrimination issues. SHAME!
How is it a shame to do anything within the law to protect my best interest. Everyone in this world does this same thing. I get judged for just simply walking through the door. Someone who has never experienced this has no right to talk about the issue on discrimination as if they are all knowing and all mighty. I work in an area were my race seems to not be represented very well if at all. The things that I have accomplished throughout my career I guarantee far surpasses yours. This world we live in is all a game and we all leverage all we have in competing in this game we call life. To tell me any different is foolish of you to think. This world is not a pleasant utopian society were each and everyone of us is treated on a level field. So SHAME on you for feeding me with your nonsense. I know fully well how this world works. You may want to go back and do some reflection in yours.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment > Job Search
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top