Gun Hub Forums banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,549 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
:roll:
The Obama administration is suing Dollar General and a BMW facility in South Carolina for the alleged unfair use of criminal background checks for job applicants, months after warning companies about how such screenings can discriminate against African Americans.

The suits were filed June 11 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which last year issued new guidelines that cautioned against rejecting minority applicants who have committed a crime and recommended businesses eliminate policies that "exclude people from employment based on a criminal record."

Read more: Feds file civil rights suits on companies using criminal background checks for hires | Fox News

Now we employ these practices at our company all people black/white/hispanic/green people/red people get the same frigg'in treatment.I guess now according to the POS's in DC we will only do BG's on Whites :roll: Why on God's green earth would one want to employ a thief,rapist or murder.Oh and do not go the road "he's been reabilitated" while my sis a bigtime lefty/obama supporter with her time in working with the FL State Peniticuary said child molesters/rapists are beyond help.They have such a stranglehold on our economy via DC!!! :soap:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,882 Posts
Javlin,

And anyone wonders why I despise ZERO, "his coven of Chicago CROOKS" & all of their works!!!!

yours, sw
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,432 Posts
I'm starting to feel like I'm in one of those cheesy 1960's surrealistic "experimental" films that made NO sense done by people who turned out to be on drugs.

You're not sure if you want to wake up or if you need to start shooting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,549 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I'm starting to feel like I'm in one of those cheesy 1960's surrealistic "experimental" films that made NO sense done by people who turned out to be on drugs.

You're not sure if you want to wake up or if you need to start shooting.
That sums it up pretty well evreything appears upside down.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,627 Posts
Absolute crap! A big, steaming pile of it, too.

So this ruling is limited ONLY to "minorities"?

So tell me, EEOC, are you saying that "minorities" get caught and convicted for more crime than other races, and therefore should get a pass?

Does that mean they stop basing ALL future employee eligibility on criminal histories? Or just "minorities"?

And I guess it's the straight white males (who meet secretly every week in this country plotting our next move against "minorities") who are the cause of this.

Hmmm...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,549 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
That's right IrishCop.Kinda like how Jim McDermott came out and said ....According to McDermott, the "ad featuring sixteen photos of wanted terrorists is not only offensive to Muslims and ethnic minorities, but it encourages racial and religious profiling."
Well while they have the list does not mean they are using it?? We have the Major at Ft.Hood with all those emails then the Russkies warning us about the Chechen brothers while in fear of insulting we look the other way!Ms.Deen looses her job for being honest and the PC crowd goes into full swing.:dunno:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/20/o...lls-on-fbi-to-take-down-photos-of-terrorists/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,678 Posts
:roll:
The Obama administration is suing Dollar General and a BMW facility in South Carolina for the alleged unfair use of criminal background checks for job applicants, months after warning companies about how such screenings can discriminate against African Americans.

The suits were filed June 11 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which last year issued new guidelines that cautioned against rejecting minority applicants who have committed a crime and recommended businesses eliminate policies that "exclude people from employment based on a criminal record."

Read more: Feds file civil rights suits on companies using criminal background checks for hires | Fox News

Now we employ these practices at our company all people black/white/hispanic/green people/red people get the same frigg'in treatment.I guess now according to the POS's in DC we will only do BG's on Whites :roll: Why on God's green earth would one want to employ a thief,rapist or murder.Oh and do not go the road "he's been reabilitated" while my sis a bigtime lefty/obama supporter with her time in working with the FL State Peniticuary said child molesters/rapists are beyond help.They have such a stranglehold on our economy via DC!!! :soap:
A private company CAN discriminate based on criminal record.

BUT…If that private company has contracts with the Federal Government accepting the Federal Government's employment standards, then the Federal Government can sue. Something tells me the two companies didn't take such sections of their contracts too seriously.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,549 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
I guess that's how Snowden got his job Kevin no BG checks but really are you trying to say the US Guberment does not do BG cks?Or you trying to say they require those under contract be held to a different standard?Either way it's unfair but it would not surprise me in the least.It's called class structure!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,500 Posts
The US Government contracts out security clearances. The company that does most of them is being investigated.

Geoff
Who is curious about how much is contracted out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,678 Posts
I guess that's how Snowden got his job Kevin no BG checks but really are you trying to say the US Guberment does not do BG cks?Or you trying to say they require those under contract be held to a different standard?Either way it's unfair but it would not surprise me in the least.It's called class structure!
I don't know what the hiring processes are for the US Government, I guess it depends on the position. What I do know is that a private company can hire whom they want and the US Government cant really say much about it…unless you have entered into a US Government contract; and I have some experience along those lines. Many US Government contracts are not given out unless the supplier abides by US Government hiring guidelines for such things, including Affirmative Action. When a supplier signs a contract with the US Government, they are agreeing to abide by their hiring standards. If said employer has a US Government contract with such language, and they're not in compliance, then the US can bring suit. I don't know the circumstances of this incident, but I'm speculating that this is perhaps what's going on. Otherwise, I can't see a situation where the US Government has cause to bring such a suit. So essentially if my speculation is correct, then these companies actually brought this on themselves by entering into a contract and not holding to the terms of the contract. That's a breach of contract, and it's a big deal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,549 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Well Kevin from what I have gone and dug up today it does not appear to be contract driven.Abit long of a read and is only part of it:

The new guidance is a blending of the old standards, and some new "suggested" best practices. In addition to considering the nature of the offense, its relationship to the potential job, and how much time that has passed since the conviction, the new guidance also recommend that employers review each case individually, creating a new requirement for an "individualized assessment." Employers are being asked to allow every applicant a chance to show why they should be hired despite a conviction. If you had any doubts, the Dollar General case makes it clear that the EEOC intends to enforce a new requirement for individualized assessment, even though Title VII has no such requirement. Conflicts with state and Federal laws are also looming, especially for health care providers, banks, and schools. For more details on the guidance, you can read my original blog post on the topic.

My problem with the guidance is that it puts employers in an untenable position: On one hand, they can be sued by the EEOC under a confusing set of guidelines for conducting criminal background checks. On the other hand, they risk negligent hiring suits from the victims of a violent employee, or fraud, theft and embezzlement.

The EEOC counters that it is not preventing employers from conducting criminal background checks, but it believes that criminal history information is being used to unfairly discriminate. Ex-offenders are not a protected class, but because of ties between arrest and race, the EEOC thinks that criminal background checks discriminate. And most people deserve a second chance. In the current economic climate where jobs are still scarce and there is abundant competition between job applicants, there are plenty of rejected candidates who are ready to test the EEOC's theory. In the end, the result is more class action lawsuits with multimillion dollar demands.

BMW

In the BMW case, the company re-screened existing employees who were reassigned to work in a different plant based on a change in contractors. Of the 645 workers who were re-screened, 55% were black and 45% were non-black. The complaint alleges that after screening the workers, BMW denied plant access to a total of 88 employees-around 14% of all employees screened. Of those 88 employees, 70 (80%) were black and 18 (20%) were non-black.

According to the complaint, BMW's policy:

"has been in effect since the opening of the BMW facility in 1994" and "excludes individuals with convictions of the following categories of crime: "Murder, Assault & Battery, Rape, Child Abuse, Spousal Abuse (Domestic Violence), Manufacturing of Drugs, Distribution of Drugs, [and] Weapons Violations." As further reflected in the written policy documents, "any convictions of a violent nature are conditions for employment rejection," and "there is no statute of limitations for any of the crimes."

The complaint says "BMW also excludes from employment individuals with criminal convictions, involving "theft, dishonesty, and moral turpitude" and "makes no distinction between felony and misdemeanor convictions."

Is this discrimination? Many employers are wondering why BMW is being sued for trying to maintain safe and sensible hiring standards. But the EEOC claims that the disparity in the rates at which black and non-black employees who lost their employment on account of BMW's criminal history background check policy is statistically significant. BMW, which employs over 9,000 workers in the US, has issued a statement that "BMW believes that it has complied with the letter and spirit of the law and will defend itself against the EEOC's allegations of race discrimination."

Dollar General

In the Dollar General complaint, the commission focuses on a hiring matrix designed Defendant with its background screening provider that identifies specific felonies and misdemeanors that will disqualify a candidate. The EEOC claims that Dollar General's matrix violates the guidance because it is not job-related and consistent with business necessity.

Specifically, the complaint states:

Moreover, the policy as applied does not provide for an individualized assessment for those applicants who receive a "Fail" result to determine if the reason for the disqualification is job-related and consistent with business necessity. For example, Defendant's policy does not allow for consideration of the age of the offender; any actual nexus between the crime and the specific job duties, employee safety, or other matters necessary to the operation of defendant's business; or to the time or events that have transpired since the offense. If the applicant was convicted of any of the identified offenses in the specified time frames, the employment offer is not made or the conditional offer of employment is rescinded."

Like BMW, the EEOC looks closely at what types of crimes disqualify candidates:

Some of the felony convictions on Defendant's matrix which mandate disqualification include: flagrant non-support (disqualified for 10 years); possession of drug paraphernalia (disqualified for 10 years); illegal dumping (disqualified for 3 years). Some of the misdemeanor convictions mandating disqualification include: improper supervision of a child (disqualified for 3 years); reckless driving (allowed 1 charge in 5-year period); failure to file income tax return (allowed 1 charge in 5-year period).

The commission says that out of 344,300 applicants, Dollar General revoked conditional employment offers for 10% of its black applicants, but only 7% of its non-black applicants, between January 2004 and April 2007, creating an improper "gross disparity" based on race. The company has more than 90,000 employees.

EEOC Targets Dollar General & BMW for Criminal Background Checks | EmployeeScreenIQ Blog
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,549 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
In the case of the Dollar General it appears that case #2 may have a leg to stand on but why the EEOC?Seems the individual should bring the suit either against the company that does the BG checks or DG themselves in a Civil matter in court.

In the Dollar General case, the EEOC filed a nationwide lawsuit in federal district court in Chicago based on charges of discrimination filed by two rejected black job applicants. One applicant was offered employment even though she disclosed a 6-year-old conviction for possession of a controlled substance, the EEOC said. But her job offer was allegedly revoked because Dollar General's policy was to disqualify anyone who had that type of conviction within the past 10 years.

Another applicant to Dollar General was fired by the company despite the fact that a report showing she had a felony conviction was wrong, the EEOC said. Even after she advised Dollar General of the mistake, the company did not reverse its decision to fire her, the agency claimed.

Dollar General, BMW Plant's Use Of Criminal Background Checks Led To Discrimination, EEOC Claims
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,678 Posts
Things related to employee screening are weird. I’ve been involved in sourcing pre-employment screening services for my company (a very large fortune 500), and that was a HUGE learning experience (and I doubt I touched the tip of the iceburg). Screening companies have SO much legal liability, it amazes me they can stay in business. Pretty much all of them have been fined by the Gov at some point or another, and in most cases it was negligence on the part of the screening company. But this case is kind of weird. It sounds to me that BMW was re-screening people when they either had a change in job position, or maybe when they changed to another division of BMW. I will admit, re-screening someone is not a common practice at all unless there are security concerns. Re-screening for drugs or alcohol abuse isn’t uncommon at all though. This will be an interesting case to watch.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,549 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Yeah Kevin almost sounds like the warehouse went under a different contractor as the old one was let go.Hence the rescreen but it does appear in part that the gov. is pushing into the process incrementally.Then to base it's case off of race driven numbers bothers me why not as it affects the "Whole Work Force" it is called the "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission" isn't it?? :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
387 Posts
Makes me wonder if POTUS hires any thugs to work in the white house or are on staff? If not, why not?
I mean after all, He's from Chicago so the likely hood of having a banger on staff should be good right?
Practice whatcha preach there Mr. Prez
Maybe you can find a sexual predator to watch the kids while you and Moochelle r in AfreeKa on vacation...justa thought:p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,678 Posts
Yeah Kevin almost sounds like the warehouse went under a different contractor as the old one was let go.Hence the rescreen but it does appear in part that the gov. is pushing into the process incrementally.Then to base it's case off of race driven numbers bothers me why not as it affects the "Whole Work Force" it is called the "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission" isn't it?? :)
Perhaps they did, but with great American reporting, to make the article much more inflammatory; they just fail to mention that. I've worked in diversity for my company and we discuss such issues like Affirmative Action. Contrary to what people think, it's NOT a quota system, but one where your workforce should roughly mirror your community. If your community is 35% black and you have only 5% of your workforce black, that will call in some questions. At one company I worked for, the community was like 18% black, yet we only had 1%. We were called on it, and were able to produce job applications…Apparently black people in general (if I dare make a generalization) don't care to work in EMS. The government suggested some recruiting strategies that were actually pretty good, and that was the end of it.

In these cases, the issue may be that they HAVE looked at all categories and the black category stood out (even government employees can recognize patterns). If black people are 3x more likely to be re-screened, then the complaint may have some legitimacy. If the company is able to clearly state that the process is the same for everyone, they're not necessarily off the hook. Even if it's for everyone, but ends up negatively affecting a certain category, then they can run into problems. In this case, it sounds like that may be what's going on. Still, I'm a bit bothered by this case (supposing what is being reported is accurate).

I'm 100% for a workplace that is equal for all. Few things get my dander up quicker than racism (really, most any discrimination that's not based solely on merit). But this one (again, providing the reporting is accurate…notice I say that a lot…it's because all too often the reporting is "accurate" but very misleading) does give the appearance of the government over-stretching. And when that happens you can bet it will always be a very large company that gets dinged. I'll be very interested in seeing how this shakes out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,499 Posts
...... Contrary to what people think, it's NOT a quota system, but one where your workforce should roughly mirror your community. If your community is 35% black and you have only 5% of your workforce black, that will call in some questions. At one company I worked for, the community was like 18% black, yet we only had 1%. We were called on it, and were able to produce job applications…Apparently black people in general (if I dare make a generalization) don't care to work in EMS. The government suggested some recruiting strategies that were actually pretty good, and that was the end of it.......
Sounds like a "quota" system to me ......:duh::poke:
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top