Advertisement

May 22, 2013

EEOC Issues Guidance on Use of Criminal Background Checks in Employment Decisions

On April 25, 2012, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued new guidance for employers on using arrest and conviction records when making employment decisions.  The guidance, which is available here, passed by a 4-1 vote of EEOC commissioners, and consolidates and supersedes the EEOC’s prior policies on this topic.

The agency decided to re-evaluate its policy on the use of criminal background checks in employment decisions after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit suggested to the EEOC in a 2007 case that the agency provide analysis and updated research on the use of background checks in employment.  Since 2007 the EEOC has examined social science and criminological research, as well as court decisions and state and federal laws, to assess the effect of the use of criminal records and background checks in employment decisions.  Of particular concern to the EEOC are the arrest and incarceration rates for certain minority groups, and the potential that the use of criminal records and background checks in employment decisions could have a disparate impact on people in those groups.

While the new guidance does not change the EEOC’s fundamental position on applying principles of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (the federal law prohibiting employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, etc.) to an employer’s use of criminal records in the workplace, it does offer more in-depth analysis of disparate treatment and disparate impact, and provides employers with clearer rules on the proper use of criminal records and background checks.  In particular, the guidance explains in detail how employers can establish a defense to claims of disparate impact by showing that employment decisions based on criminal records or background checks are job-related and consistent with business necessity.

In addition to the guidance, the EEOC issued a Q&A, available here.  (Note that certain states have further restrictions regarding how such information is gathered and used.)  Please stay tuned for a more detailed discussion of the guidance and its implications for employers.

© 2013 McDermott Will & Emery

About the Author

Partner

Heather Egan Sussman is a partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based in the Firm’s Boston office.  She brings a practical, business-sense approach to solving workplace issues that helps clients efficiently and effectively manage every kind of HR and privacy-related risk.  Heather is Co-Chair of the Firm’s Global Data Privacy Affinity Group and a Certified Information Privacy Professional.

617-535-4177

About the Author

Partner

Stephen D. Erf is a partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based in the Firm’s Chicago office.  Stephen focuses his practice on civil rights and labor/employment counseling and litigation, restrictive covenants, wage and hour, union organizing, collective bargaining, employment discrimination, wrongful discharge and public accommodations.  He has worked with clients in a wide range of industries, including health care, education, construction, manufacturing, service, food, social service, chemical and transportation.  Stephen has been...

312-984-7637

Contributors

Associate

 

Sabrina E. Dunlap is an associate in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based in the Firm’s Boston office.  She focuses her practice on data privacy.  Sabrina is a Certified Information Privacy Professional.

617-535-4014

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.