A Snag in EEOC's Plans to Regulate Background Checks

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission  is a bipartisan Commission that enforces employment discrimination laws. One of their most recent oversight efforts has been to engage in lawsuits aimed at businesses who use background checks to rule out applicants with criminal records. The EEOC claims that certain policies and procedures followed by companies are an act of discrimination against certain minorities. Lawsuits against Dollar General and a U.S. unit of BMW are pending;  however, on August 9th, a lawsuit filed in 2009 by the EEOC against Freeman Companies was resolved last week.

Freeman Companies, an event-marketing company, may have set precedent for several other similar cases when a Federal District Judge dismissed the case brought by the EEOC.  The Judge's opinion letter stated there was a lack of facts and error-ridden statistics. There was no evidence to prove that Freeman Companies, a company that employs 30,000+ people of varying races and backgrounds, was discriminating against African Americans or Hispanic applicants. While this is but a single ruling, this case will certainly have long reaching effects on the efforts of the EEOC’s plan to enforce their opinion on how background checks are used by companies.

Companies should be allowed to protect their primary assets.... their employees and their customers. The refusal to hire an applicant with a relevant, past conviction is not the same as racial discrimination. Safeguarding a company and its employees from violence, fraud, harassment, etc. is a perfectly reasonable course of action. The recent rulings may play a huge factor in the EEOC’s attempts to regulate the use of background checks. This is a victory of sorts for companies that want to maintain a safe workplace and protect their bottom line.

How do you feel about the ruling? 

How do you think it will affect the EEOC’s attempts to enforce their opinion on how background checks should be used by companies? 

Texas House Bill 1188 Limits Liability

Texas House Bill 1188

This bill limits the liability of employers, general contractors, premise owners and third parties for hiring employees with criminal convictions. It was introduced in February of this year, and it will take effect on September 1, 2013.
HB 1188 states that no legal action can be taken against an employer who negligently hires an employee with a criminal record. Now before you consider calling off background checks to cut your costs, be aware that there are many exceptions to this bill.

Exceptions-

An employer may be sued for negligently hiring an employee:

I. who has committed a criminal offense while performing duties similar to those expected to be performed in the course of employment

II. who has committed an criminal offense under conditions similar to those expected to be encountered in the course of employment

III. who has committed murder, capital murder, indecency with a child, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault, and/or aggravated robbery

Even with this law in place, you may still find yourself answering for the actions of your employees. Continuing to screen your applicants will protect your company and its reputation, as well as save you from a legal nightmare. The cost of a law suit is much more than the cost of a criminal background check, so don’t put your company at risk.

Click here for House Bill 1188 in its entirety.

Richmond, CA Takes "Ban-the-Box" A Step Further

Richmond, California added Chapter 2.65 to the Municipal Code entitled “Ban the Box” on July 30, 2013. Unlike other cities, Richmond is requiring that no employer can make inquiries into past criminal convictions at any point during the hiring process. While it does not prevent employers from doing background checks, it does prevent them from using criminal records to exclude ex-cons from their list of prospective employees

Below is a map of all the states who have adopted “Ban the Box” in some way.



Unlike, Richmond, CA, the laws in other cities mainly ban the inclusion of the checkbox for past convictions on the job application exclusively. Employers are not restricted from asking potential employees about their criminal background during the interview process.  Richmond, a city inundated with high crime and high unemployment, has taken this law a step further. Employers must refrain from discriminating against people with criminal records.

There are some exclusions from the new ordinance, of course. Jobs with children, seniors, and other “sensitive” jobs are special cases that are not included in the ordinance.

Richmond City Councilwoman, Jovanka Beckles, believes that it levels the playing field for all races. Beckles was one of the six people who approved the ordinance in a 6-1 vote in favor of the law. Those who voted in favor of the law believe that it gives ex-convicts a fair chance to have a place in our workforce, instead of turning back to crime.

The lone councilman opposed to the ordinance, Tom Butt, told a local newspaper, “It will be a nightmare to enforce and will discourage business and investment in Richmond.”

You can read city ordinance 14-13 N.S. here.


Thoughts? Good? Bad? Will this become a trend in places with high crime and unemployment?