U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Inundated by Comments on EEOC Guidance

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) held a briefing on December 2012 to assess the impact of criminal background checks and the EEOC’s guidance on the consideration of arrest and conviction records in enforcement decisions under Title VII and its impact on the employment of black and Hispanic workers. Hire Image, along with the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS) and many other like-minded organizations, signed a letter to the commission to provide insight into the defects of the Guidance – defects that discourage responsible use of criminal background checks. The letter was quite lengthy but highlighted the lack of transparency in issuing the guidance as well as the failure to weigh the important societal interests served by criminal background checks. The USCCR received so many letters that they have been unable to post them online.  We have reproduced the letter here.
Peter Kirsanow, a member of the US Commission on Civil Rights and a partner in the Labor and Employment Practice Group of Benesch wrote the following in a recent article in the National Review Online (January 2013):
At a hearing, last month before the U.S.Commission on Civil Rights about the EEOC’s background check guidance at Hire Image, the EEOC’s representative acknowledged that the agency has no studies regarding the job performances of ex-offenders compared to non-offenders. There’s no statistical evidence to support or disprove the EEOC’s theory that the use of criminal background checks unlawfully disadvantages one group (ex-offenders) that would otherwise perform just as well as another group (non-offenders). In other words, the EEOC’s guidance is based on a hunch.
Commissioner Barker was the lone EEOC Commissioner to vote against the guidance. In her public testimony she objected based upon four fundamental reasons:

1) Lack of Transparency in the approval process. The Guidance has a tremendous impact on the American people yet the Commission is set about approving Guidance without the input of Americans who have expertise in this area.
2) Senate Appropriations Committee had raised concerns about the haste with which the Commission was proposing to change the Guidance. They specifically requested the Commission to engage stakeholders and to circulate any proposals for public input at least six months prior to voting on changes. The Commission ignored this request.
3) The Guidance exceeds the EEOC’s authority as a regulatory commission. The Commission’s job is to explain what is already law, not to expand it. It is Congress’ job to change the laws and the court's job to interpret the laws. The Commission does not have the authority to provide additional protections under Title VII, it is Congress’ job.
4) The tremendous burden the Guidance places on businesses. The Guidance puts businesses between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, if they continue to screen their applicants they are taking a tremendous risk of unintentional discrimination under a disparate impact theory. If they don’t run the check they risk that an employee or a member of the public will be harmed.
Commissioner Barker came to the EEOC with extensive experience in labor and employment law. She understands what employers face every day — she gets it!
Until the Guidance is knocked down by the courts, employers will be forced to consider guidance when utilizing criminal background screens. Many employment attorneys we speak with recommend employers revise job descriptions to show items that would be required for the particular job. No longer should a job description state actual job functions, they should now include items such as be able to respect authority; be trustworthy; work well with others; and have the ability to handle personal identifying information or confidential information. Hire Image encourages all employers to review job descriptions with an employment attorney to be certain that job-relatedness for particular crimes can be shown.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How to properly perform Employee Background Checks

In order to protect your company, you need to conduct  background screening  when hiring employees . Employee Background Checks ensure that the person you are considering for hire does not have any improprieties on their record, which could come back to haunt your company or the culture you’ve built within it. Employee background checks scour data related to employment history, driving history,  drug screening , academic or professional qualifications, and criminal records, among others. According to recent data, most companies outsource these services. One such employee background  screening company  that is leading the pack is  Hire Image . Since 2005, Hire Image has superior market standing and provides well-informed hiring data to each of its clients. Hire Image works with national and international companies as well as large enterprises and SMBs, ensuring that they continuously hire the right people in their own image. ...
Read more

Clarity on Oral Fluid Drug Testing and the New SAMHSA Guidelines

Image
As part of recently established guidelines by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), oral fluid specimens will now be included in the mandatory requirements for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs. Join   Hire Image  CEO Christine Cunneen and OraSure Technologies Director of Sales, Brian Feeley, and Director of Marketing, Jackie Pirone, for our FREE Webinar to take an in depth look at oral fluid drug testing, learn about the new SAMHSA guidelines, and get answers to other important questions: • What is oral fluid testing and how does it work? • How do drug screening methods differ? How are they the same? • Do any methods detect impairment? • Can you conduct hybrid testing? • What are the new SAMHSA guidelines and how do they affect your industry and testing policies? • Can oral fluid be used in all 50 states? Originally Posted:-  https://www.hireimage.org/oral-fluid-drug-testing-new-samhsa-guidelines/
Read more

Salary History Ban Becomes Law in New York State

Image
Effective January 6, 2020:  Employers in New York are prohibited from inquiring into or relying upon the salary history of an applicant or employee in determining whether to offer a job and in setting that person’s salary.  Employers are also prohibited from retaliating against applicants or employees who refuse to disclose salary history information. This decision follows in the footsteps of New York City, Suffolk County, and Westchester County, all of whom already passed their own salary history bans.  Unlike New York City’s law though, New York State’s law applies not only to job applicants.  Rather, it also applies to current employees who are seeking internal transfers or promotions. Nothing in the law prohibits an applicant or employee from voluntarily and “without prompting” disclosing salary history.  Additionally, if an applicant or current employee chooses to disclose such information to try to negotiate a higher offer, an employer may th...
Read more