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.
As long has employers are held responsible for employee action even damage wise then it should be their decision. Its not employers pushing this its the public saying you had better be very careful and be able to show you where otherwise you have to pay. Even individuals are checking public records more and more in relationships.
Yes, it discriminated by conducting criminal records checks. The EEOC has made no allegations beyond it's assertion that disparate impact invariably means that the company is discriminating.
This may just be a test case to see if they can get away with furthering an agenda.
This is a lie. Look, I can discuss the cases, but these distortions are unnecessary.
In the suit against BMW, the EEOC alleges that BMW disproportionately screened out African Americans from jobs, and that the policy is not job related and consistent with business necessity. The claimants were employees of UTi Integrated Logistics, Inc. ("UTi"), which provided logistic services to BMW at the South Carolina facility. The logistics services included warehouse and distribution assistance, transportation services and manufacturing support.
Since 1994, BMW has had a criminal conviction policy that denies facility access to BMW employees and employees of contractors with certain criminal convictions. However, when UTi assigned the claimants to work at the BMW facility, UTi screened the employees according to UTi's criminal conviction policy. UTi's criminal background check limited review to convictions within the prior seven years. BMW's policy has no time limit with regard to convictions. The policy is a blanket exclusion without any individualized assessment of the nature and gravity of the crimes, the ages of the convictions, or the nature of the claimants' respective positions.
In Illinois, the Chicago office of the EEOC filed a nationwide lawsuit based on discrimination charges filed by two rejected black applicants. That lawsuit charges that Dollar General conditions all of its job offers on criminal background checks, which results in a disparate impact against blacks. Dollar General operates 10,000 stores in 40 states, plus 11 distribution centers. Ninety percent of all Dollar General employees are store clerks who are both stockers and cashiers at the stores.
Here is the criteria that the EEOC uses for these kinds of discrimination cases
In a case involving a criminal record exclusion, the Eighth Circuit in its 1975 Green v. Missouri Pacific Railroad decision, held that it was discriminatory under Title VII for an employer to “follow[] the policy of disqualifying for employment any applicant with a conviction for any crime other than a minor traffic offense.”89 The Eighth Circuit identified three factors (the “Green factors”) that were relevant to assessing whether an exclusion is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity:
The nature and gravity of the offense or conduct;90
The time that has passed since the offense or conduct and/or completion of the sentence; 91 and
The nature of the job held or sought.92
Did anyone even stop to think that these people may have lied on their applications? It doesn't matter the severity of the crime or how long ago it was. You sign your name under penalty that everything you stated is true. Firing is that penalty.
Did anyone even stop to think that these people may have lied on their applications? It doesn't matter the severity of the crime or how long ago it was. You sign your name under penalty that everything you stated is true. Firing is that penalty.
You aren't even up on the cases. SMH. Look it does matter the severity of the crime and how long ago it was a court of law in 1975 said those factors are a consideration. SMH
This is a lie. Look, I can discuss the cases, but these distortions are unnecessary.
In the suit against BMW, the EEOC alleges that BMW disproportionately screened out African Americans from jobs, and that the policy is not job related and consistent with business necessity. The claimants were employees of UTi Integrated Logistics, Inc. ("UTi"), which provided logistic services to BMW at the South Carolina facility. The logistics services included warehouse and distribution assistance, transportation services and manufacturing support.
Since 1994, BMW has had a criminal conviction policy that denies facility access to BMW employees and employees of contractors with certain criminal convictions. However, when UTi assigned the claimants to work at the BMW facility, UTi screened the employees according to UTi's criminal conviction policy. UTi's criminal background check limited review to convictions within the prior seven years. BMW's policy has no time limit with regard to convictions. The policy is a blanket exclusion without any individualized assessment of the nature and gravity of the crimes, the ages of the convictions, or the nature of the claimants' respective positions.
In Illinois, the Chicago office of the EEOC filed a nationwide lawsuit based on discrimination charges filed by two rejected black applicants. That lawsuit charges that Dollar General conditions all of its job offers on criminal background checks, which results in a disparate impact against blacks. Dollar General operates 10,000 stores in 40 states, plus 11 distribution centers. Ninety percent of all Dollar General employees are store clerks who are both stockers and cashiers at the stores.
Here is the criteria that the EEOC uses for these kinds of discrimination cases
In a case involving a criminal record exclusion, the Eighth Circuit in its 1975 Green v. Missouri Pacific Railroad decision, held that it was discriminatory under Title VII for an employer to “follow[] the policy of disqualifying for employment any applicant with a conviction for any crime other than a minor traffic offense.”89 The Eighth Circuit identified three factors (the “Green factors”) that were relevant to assessing whether an exclusion is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity:
The nature and gravity of the offense or conduct;90
The time that has passed since the offense or conduct and/or completion of the sentence; 91 and
The nature of the job held or sought.92
It's not a lie - you might want it to be, since the facts so far don't support your pre-existing opinion on the subject.
What EEOC is alleging is quite simply that BMW's blanket policy which does not take race into account is discriminatory because blacks are more likely to be convicted criminals.
That is ridiculous. It is also why my previous example (that blacks are generally less qualified for jobs because they are more likely to be uneducated because of past discrimination), which you derided, is a perfectly fine illustration of how silly the EEOC's opinion is. In order for the policy to be racist, EEOC will have to prove that BMW has used this policy as a pretext to get rid of blacks - not simply that blacks were more impacted by the policy.
If you are unable to distinguish between those two points, then you really don't understand why this case is suspect to so many.
Also, The BMW plant is in South Carolina, so an 8th circuit decision isn't applicable in this instance. Although, BMW's policy under that ruling would not be racist, but discriminatory towards convicted criminals by way of a test set up by a court.
You aren't even up on the cases. SMH. Look it does matter the severity of the crime and how long ago it was a court of law in 1975 said those factors are a consideration. SMH
a consideration?? So what! They don't have to consider it. SMH
It's not a lie - you might want it to be, since the facts so far don't support your pre-existing opinion on the subject.
What EEOC is alleging is quite simply that BMW's blanket policy which does not take race into account is discriminatory because blacks are more likely to be convicted criminals.
That is ridiculous. It is also why my previous example (that blacks are generally less qualified for jobs because they are more likely to be uneducated because of past discrimination), which you derided, is a perfectly fine illustration of how silly the EEOC's opinion is. In order for the policy to be racist, EEOC will have to prove that BMW has used this policy as a pretext to get rid of blacks - not simply that blacks were more impacted by the policy.
If you are unable to distinguish between those two points, then you really don't understand why this case is suspect to so many.
Also, The BMW plant is in South Carolina, so an 8th circuit decision isn't applicable in this instance. Although, BMW's policy under that ruling would not be racist, but discriminatory towards convicted criminals by way of a test set up by a court.
No, that is not what the EEOC is contending. Again you aren't looking at the guidance that EEOC uses to determine if criminal background checks are discriminatory. Criminal background checks can be used in a discriminatory manner if those three criteria are not met.
It is saying you can't have blanket criminal background checks on all jobs and all applicants if you don't follow those guidelines.
The EEOC contends those 2 companies didn't follow those guidelines and used the criminals background in a discriminatory manner.
Disparate impact can be sufficient to prove racial discrimination. This is reality. For example in the south Poll taxes and literacy tests didn't specifically exclude black people, but the disparate impact of those kinds of things excluded black people from voting.
No, that is not what the EEOC is contending. Again you aren't looking at the guidance that EEOC uses to determine if criminal background checks are discriminatory. Criminal background checks can be used in a discriminatory manner if those three criteria are not met.
It is saying you can't have blanket criminal background checks on all jobs and all applicants if you don't follow those guidelines.
The EEOC contends those 2 companies didn't follow those guidelines and used the criminals background in a discriminatory manner.
Disparate impact can be sufficient to prove racial discrimination. This is reality. For example in the south Poll taxes and literacy tests didn't specifically exclude black people, but the disparate impact of those kinds of things excluded black people from voting.
They can be - interviews and resumes can also be used in a discriminatory manner.
Poll taxes were constitutional until the 24th amendment was passed.
Literacy tests were never found unconstitutional, they were made illegal by federal legislation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73
Yes, they do. It is the law of the land.
I'm a bit confused - the case the EEOC cites is from the 8th circuit, so how does it apply to South Carolina?
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 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.
