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.
No, it is not a misreprensentation, please feel free to attend the next public briefing, or the one at your company if it has one, and see what the EEOC lawyer will state. All a black perosn with a criminal record has to do is file an EEOC claim, the EEOC will investigate if the criminal record was the reason for the action the company took. Since this would be disparate impact, the company would be liable for that imapct, even if there was no disparate impact at the company itself, as the EEOC uses aggregate numbers from across the US in regards to criminal records.
A company that is all black can still be charged with discrimination.
It is a misrepresentation.
In guidance for employers on compliance with the Civil Rights Act, the EEOC says that while it's not against the law to use an applicant's criminal history in employment decisions, employers should consider "the nature of the crime, the time elapsed, and the nature of the job."
Now I am being reasonable with you, but I can't stand liars. You may not like these law suits, but to say that the EEOC is saying any company that fires any black person due to a criminal background check is practicing racial discrimination is an absolute distortion and a lie.
In fact the EEOC isn't contending that all of BMW is doing this, but that one facility did.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced a lawsuit against BMW on Tuesday, alleging that one of its facilities in South Carolina adopted a criminal background check policy that led to a disproportionate impact on African-Americans.
I have quite a bit of experience with EEOC, I used to work for them.
You apparently don't know much about them.
They're not going to court unless they have ironclad proof.
That's why most cases don't get anywhere near court.
IMO most businesses simply give in because they can not afford to fight the EEOC.
it seems to me that a person's criminal history should be a valid criteria for hiring/not hiring
Disparate impact and discriminatory intent are two different things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73
Because I listed a plethora of crimes that most Americans have broken and they break those laws everyday. Now if you happen to be in a population that is oversampled by the police, you are more likely to get caught for breaking those laws, that represents unequal enforcement that doesn't mean that other people who are doing the same thing are somehow less of a criminal than you are, but because of unfair enforcement they are far less likely to be caught and punished.
As an American unequal application of the law against certain groups of Americans is racial discrimination and as such is a violation of the constitution, and you just don't address violations of the constitution by government agencies by saying stay of trouble.
There is no preferential treatment for black Americans. The EEOC is attempting to address racial discrimination against black Americans.
That really isn't BMW's fault. The government is blaming a private company for firing people based on the allegedly racist actions of the government?
What's next - it's not fair that you didn't hire the black person because he didn't get an education because he is black and therefore more likely to be poor - so hiring the qualified candidate is discrimination!
What would be racism is if it was recorded that BMW treated differently white and black employees with similar criminal records.
Disparate impact and discriminatory intent are two different things.
That really isn't BMW's fault. The government is blaming a private company for firing people based on the racist actions of the government?
That sounds fair.
Now, what would be racism is if it was recorded that BMW treated differently white and black employees with similar criminal records.
Exactly, and it puts these companies between a rock and a hard place.
The EEOC wants the companies to use "judgement" but if the impact is disparate they crucify them. So the companies can't use judgment and merely use blanket policies to protect themselves legally.
Even after doing everything equally, they get charged because of the disparate impact.
I mean holy cow, it's not like they polled all the workers and fired the ones that voted for Obama or like hiphop music.
Although the commission said employers are allowed to conduct background checks, it charged that the companies’ blanket policies of not hiring candidates with criminal records amounted to discrimination against African Americans. Justice Department statistics show that blacks accounted for 37 percent of those behind bars last year, even though they make up only 13 percent of the U.S. population.
If more non-blacks were in jail then wouldn't they feel the effect more than blacks? Or is it because the non-blacks are still in jail and therefore not applying for jobs?
And I worked for a company that was sold twice in two years. I had to re-apply for my job and go through a background check. I also had to agree to changes in employment agreements. Several people were let go but mainly for refusing to agree with some of the agreements.
The office I worked in was very well run, yet chronically understaffed.
If they're talking about court, there is a good chance that they have their ducks in a row.
I was a paralegal in my office.
Nothing went as far as court if they didn't have an excellent chance of winning.
In general I think the EEOC does good work but sometimes they are influenced politically and also occasionally have lawyers trying to make a name for themselves and maybe foster a political career. (Just like in any industry there are some bad eggs).
Also, the "disparate impact" argument is used not just by the EEOC but by other govt. entities as well. They generally try it only because as the govt. they can get away with ridiculous claims that the general public cannot.
Disparate impact and discriminatory intent are two different things.
That really isn't BMW's fault. The government is blaming a private company for firing people based on the allegedly racist actions of the government?
What's next - it's not fair that you didn't hire the black person because he didn't get an education because he is black and therefore more likely to be poor - so hiring the qualified candidate is discrimination!
What would be racism is if it was recorded that BMW treated differently white and black employees with similar criminal records.
Again, the EEOC contends that BMW used the criminal background in a discriminatory manner.
And as I already pointed out the EEOC is attempting to address the source of the problem on the backend, but I applaud their efforts.
The rest of your post is irrelevant [MOD CUT]
Last edited by Ibginnie; 06-12-2013 at 04:32 PM..
Reason: personal attack
Exactly, and it puts these companies between a rock and a hard place.
The EEOC wants the companies to use "judgement" but if the impact is disparate they crucify them. So the companies can't use judgment and merely use blanket policies to protect themselves legally.
Even after doing everything equally, they get charged because of the disparate impact.
I mean holy cow, it's not like they polled all the workers and fired the ones that voted for Obama or like hiphop music.
This is a huge exaggeration of the EEOC's claims. I don't understand the need to distort the actual specifics of these cases.
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.
