Advertisement

June 19, 2013

EEOC Hearing On Employer Criminal Background Checks Portends Upcoming Changes to the Hiring Process

The EEOC will hold a public meeting on April 25 to discuss a common aspect of the hiring process – criminal background checks on applicants. This meeting follows one held by the EEOC last July and follows the EEOC's 2005 Informal Discussion Letter which stated that a “blanket policy” of refusing to hire because of criminal history violates Title VII by “disproportionately excluding members of certain racial or ethnic groups, unless the employer can demonstrate a business need for use of this criteria.”

The EEOC's focus on criminal background checks comes at a time when most employers are increasing their use of the checks. A 2010 survey by the Society for Human Resource Management found that 92% of employers use criminal background checks.

Most employers use these checks primarily out of safety and security concerns for their employees and customers. More frequently, however, employers are using the checks to screen out applicants who will be placed in positions with access to confidential information such as your personal financial information, social security numbers, credit card information, medical information, etc. – information which has been used in the ballooning crime of identity theft.

The EEOC's concern is that, while not intentionally discriminatory, the checks nevertheless have a discriminatory impact on minorities who are arrested and incarcerated at a rate disproportionate to whites. A 2006 study in the University of Chicago's Journal of Law and Economics, however, found just the opposite – employers using criminal background checks were statistically more likely to hire minorities, presumably because they relied on the background checks to screen candidates and not racial or sexual stereotyping.

Nevertheless, the EEOC has sued employers – including the U.S. Census Bureau - using this theory. The EEOC recently announced the recovery of $3.13 million from Pepsi Beverages using this theory.

Historically, the EEOC has used these meetings as a precursor to issuing new regulations.

©2002-2013 Fowler White Boggs P.A. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

About the Author

Shareholder

Kelly H. Kolb has defended employment claims for over 20 years before State and federal courts, administrative bodies and arbitration panels. He has successfully defended State and Federal discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation, USERRA, FLSA overtime, wrongful termination, wage, and unemployment claims. He has fought FLSA overtime compliance audits by the U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, and has successfully litigated FLSA collective action overtime suits. He has successfully litigated ERISA and COBRA claims, defending both employers and plan administrators. He has...

954-703-3944

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.