For the second time in less than six months, the EEOC finds itself on the wrong side of a lawsuit. On November 4, 2013, the State of Texas sued the EEOC in the Northern District of Texas seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the EEOC for issuing its 2012 arrest and conviction guidance (the “2012 Guidance”).
The EEOC has been facing some controversy with regard to its April 2012 guidance on the use of criminal background checks, in which it discussed the appropriate use of criminal background information for employment purposes, which we discussed in a prior blog entry, “EEOC’s Updated Guidance on Arrests and Convictions.”
EEOC Responds to Attorneys’ General Criticism of EEOC’s “Misguided” Position On Criminal Background Screens
We previously blogged about the scathing letter sent by the chief legal officers representing the states of Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, Utah and West Virginia to the five Commissioners of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) blasting the EEOC on its position that “employers’ use of bright-line criminal background checks in the hiring process violates Title VII…” and urging the EEOC to reconsider its ‘Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964’ approved in April 2012.
We recently described here how the culmination of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) aggressive enforcement of its April 25, 2012 Enforcement Guidance and numerous state and local ban-the-box laws has created a new criminal background check minefield protecting criminals at the expense of employers. But how are employers supposed to respond?
Criminal Records & Hiring Screens: EEOC Scolded for “Laughable” Evidence of Discrimination – Jerry Maatman
The EEOC has recently made policing the use of criminal records in the hiring process a major priority of theirs—but so far, it is not going very well. In the much-discussed EEOC v. Freeman suit, where the EEOC sued the event management company for allegedly discriminatory practices, the EEOC was scolded strongly for evidence deemed to be “laughable” and “unreliable.”
Since April 25, 2012 – when the EEOC issued its guidance on the use of arrest and conviction information in employment – employers have been struggling with what it means for their hiring practices. As we wrote about here and here, the EEOC has been extremely aggressive in pursuing litigation seeking to enforce the concepts set forth in the guidance.
U.S. Commission On Civil Rights’ Takes Action On Draft Report On the EEOC’s Guidance On Hiring Screens
Since April 25, 2012 – when the EEOC issued its guidance on the use of arrest and conviction information in employment – employers have been struggling with what it means for their hiring practices.
Gone are the days when employers could simplify the hiring process with blanket policies requiring criminal background checks of all applicants and excluding an individual from employment based solely on a prior conviction.
First Blow to EEOC’s Effort to Enforce Broad Criminal Background Check Rules Under Disparate Impact Theory of Discrimination
Following last year’s issuance by the EEOC of controversial criminal background check guidelines, the EEOC has filed a number of lawsuits attempting to enforce these guidelines.
Court Dismisses EEOC’s Background Check Lawsuit Based On Its Reliance On “Laughable” and “Unreliable” Expert Report Filled of “Errors and Analytical Fallacies”
In a scathing opinion issued today in EEOC v. Freeman, No. 09-CV-2573 (D. Md. Aug. 9, 2013), Judge Roger Titus of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed a nationwide pattern or practice lawsuit brought by the EEOC (previously discussed here and here) that alleged that Freeman, Inc., a service provider for corporate events, unlawfully relied upon credit and criminal background checks that caused a disparate impact against African-American, Hispanic, and male job applicants.