SlideShare une entreprise Scribd logo
1  sur  73
Background Checks Under Fire:
Policy Considerations to Avoid
Discrimination Claims

MIKE COFFEY, SPHR
PRESIDENT
I M P E R AT I V E I N F O R M AT I O N
GROUP
Mike Coffey, SPHR
Not a lawyer!
Just a smart
guy with some
street cred.

Get good
legal advice!

• President
Imperative Information Group
WHY EMPLOYERS RUN BACKGROUND CHECKS
WHY EMPLOYERS RUN BACKGROUND CHECKS
TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
PROTECTED CLASSES UNDER TITLE VII






Race
Color
Sex
National
origin
 Religion
EEOC
 Federal law enforcement
agency
 Not rulemaking agency

 2,500+ employees
EEOC
 5 commissioners
 Currently 3 Democrats
and 2 Republicans
 Commissioner Jenny
Yang approved by Senate
April 2013

Ms. Yang represents
employees nationwide in
complex, civil rights class
actions and wage and
hour collective actions.
- Cohen Milstein bio
OTHER TITLE VII ENFORCEMENT
 State fair employment practices agencies
can also enforce Title VII
 Individuals can also file individual lawsuits

Courthouse
DISPARATE TREATMENT
 Disparate Treatment - intentional discrimination
against someone in a protected class where
there is not a bona fide occupational
qualification.
DISPARATE IMPACT
 Disparate impact - seemingly neutral policies
without business necessity that have adverse
impacts on protected classes (“disparate
impact” - see Griggs v. Duke Power Company)
 “Business necessity” –
 manifest relationship to employment role
 with no viable alternatives to qualify
DISPARATE IMPACT
“…good intent or absence of discriminatory intent
does not redeem employment procedures or
testing mechanisms that operate as „built-in
headwinds‟ for minority groups and are unrelated
to measuring job capability.”
Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger
Griggs v. Duke Power
TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
When reviewing criminal records, an employer must consider
the Green factors (Green v. Missouri Pacific Railroad):
 Nature of the offense,
 The time elapsed,
 The nature of the job,
In non-conviction cases (arrests, dismissals, etc.), employers
should also consider the reasonable likelihood that the person
engaged in the underlying conduct.
See the previous EEOC Guidance: EEOC Policy Statement on the Issue of Conviction Records under Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 (1987) and Policy Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest Records in Employment Decisions under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (1990)
TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
Criminal Records Brightline Rule:
Have you ever been arrested?
 No

 Yes (please deposit your application in the
trashcan on your way out)
TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
Criminal Records Brightline Rule:
“Clean background check required”

“No felonies allowed”
“No convictions for theft or dishonesty.”
EEOC ACTIVITY
02/22/2012 Strategic Plan for FY 2012-2016
 Combat employment discrimination through
strategic law enforcement.
 Prevent employment discrimination through
education and outreach
 Deliver excellent and consistent service through
a skilled and diverse workforce and effective
systems.
PEPSICO CONCILIATION AGREEMENT
EEOC V. FREEMAN COMPANIES

“Careful and appropriate use of criminal history
information is an important, and in many cases
essential, part of the employment process of employers
throughout the United States. As Freeman points out,
even the EEOC conducts criminal background investigations
as a condition of employment for all employees, and
conducts credit
background checks on approximately 90 percent of its
positions.”
-- U.S. District Judge Roger W. Titus
August 9, 2013
EEOC V. FREEMAN COMPANIES

The EEOC‟s case contained "a plethora of errors and
analytical fallacies" that made the conclusions "completely
unreliable." The EEOC‟s expert "cherry-picked" data and
examined the wrong time period when reviewing Freeman's
records.

--

U.S. District Judge Roger W. Titus
August 9, 2013
EEOC V. KAPLAN HIGHER EDUCATION CORP.

In January 2013, this case was dismissed
by the federal judge after Kaplan
demonstrated that the EEOC used credit in
hiring its own employees using rationale
similar to Kaplan‟s: “overdue just debts
increase temptation to commit illegal or
unethical acts as a means of gaining funds
to meet financial obligations.”
EEOC V. PEOPLEMARK
JUNE 2013 CASE FILINGS
JUNE 2013 CASE FILINGS
HOW MANY DISPARATE IMPACT CASES
RELATED TO CRIMINAL HISTORY HAVE
PLAINTIFFS WON SINCE 1975?
OFCCP
STATE EEO LAWS
Many states have their own equal employment
opportunity or human rights laws.
 Washington state and Hawaii will not allow employers to consider
any criminal records older than ten years.
 At least 7 states have “job-relatedness” requirements for the
consideration of criminal records
STATE CREDIT REPORT LAWS
“Ban the Box”
 Massachusetts, Minnesota, Hawaii, & Rhode
Island: Public and private employers may not
inquire about criminal records on the initial written
application.
 Connecticut & New Mexico: Public employers
may not inquire about criminal records on the
initial written application.
 More than 2 dozen cities have passed similar
ordinances including Philadelphia, Baltimore,
Memphis, San Francisco, and Seattle.
Background Screening Policy Considerations to Avoid Discrimination Claims
NEW EEOC ENFORCEMENT GUIDANCE
NEW EEOC ENFORCEMENT GUIDANCE
NEW EEOC ENFORCEMENT GUIDANCE
CRIMINAL OFFENDERS NOT A PROTECTED CLASS
Green factors
+ Individualized Assessment
Nature & Gravity
Time Passed
Nature of the Job
Individualized Assessment
Individualized Assessment
Individualized Assessment
Individualized Assessment
Individualized Assessment
Individualized Assessment
Individualized Assessment
Individualized Assessment
Individualized Assessment
How to respond to the EEOC’s
individualized assessment guidance?
Add individualized assessment on the
employment application?
Following your application‟s state-specific criminal history question, Coffey suggests
that you consider adding:
If you believe that the information above does not adequately reflect the
circumstances surrounding the case(s) listed above or if there is additional
information not included elsewhere on this application that you believe the
Company should be aware in evaluating your fitness for this position, please
provide that information below:
Add individualized assessment to the FCRA
pre-adverse action notice?

Insert: If you believe that there is
additional information that may help us
better evaluate your fitness for this
position in light of the information in the
attached consumer report, please contact
us immediately.
Individualized Assessment Factors
Is individualized assessment
always necessary?
Relation to Other Federal Laws
Relation to State Laws
Ban the Box (backdoor version)
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
Smart employers will have
polices in place before
background results are
requested.
Always consult with your
background screening partner
and legal counsel before creating
new policies in this area.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: CRIMINAL RECORDS
How might past behavior predict on-the-job
behavior?

=
ADJUDICATION RELEVANCE MATRIX
Position-specific (or job class-specific?) criminal
offense guidelines (in line with state laws):
Yes: Eligible for hire (Y)

Corporate Review: Management review of
offense, time that has passed, and
applicant‟s whole picture (C) or (R)

No: Not eligible for hire (N)
SHOULD BE LIMITED IN
APPLICATION
Adjudication Relevance Matrix
OFFENSE

Alcohol Consumption/Possession
Alcohol Sale to Minor
Arson
Assault/Battery/Domestic Violence (FELONY)
Assault/Battery/Domestic Violence (MISD)
Auto Theft
Burglary/Breaking and Entering/Burglar's Tools
Child Abuse/Molestation
Child Neglect/Child Endangerment (FELONY)
Child Neglect/Child Endangerment (MISD)
Child Support
Computer Crimes
Contributing to Delinquency Minor
Credit Card Abuse/Fraud/Skimming
Criminal Contempt
Criminal Mischief/Damage to Property/Vandalism
Disorderly Conduct
Drug Possession/Drug Abuse/Poss. of Drug Paraphernalia (MISD)
Drug Sale/Distribution/Manufacturing/Felony Possession
Embezzlement
Evading Arrest/Failure to Identify as Fugitive/Fugitive
Failure to File Tax Return
False Report

0 - 3 YEARS
(0 - 36 MONTHS)

3 - 7 YEARS
(37 - 84 MONTHS)

7 YEARS +
(85 + MONTHS)

Y

Y

Y

C

C

Y

N

N

N

N

N

C

C

C

Y

N

N

C

N

N

C

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

C

Y

Y

Y

Y

C

C

C

C

C

C

N

N

N

C

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

C

Y

Y

N

C

Y

N

N

C

N

N

N

C

C

Y

C

Y

Y

C

Y

Y
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: CRIMINAL INQUIRY
Please list all misdemeanor and felony criminal matters,
other than minor traffic safety violations for which no arrest

was made, in which you were convicted, served probation,
participated in deferred adjudication or other program to
avoid a conviction, or made restitution or participated in

pre-trial diversion or other program to avoid prosecution.
Disclosure of interaction with the criminal justice system
will not necessarily eliminate you from consideration for
employment.

Remember that some states’
laws limit the inquiries that
may be made!
Policy Considerations: Criminal Inquiry
Following your application‟s state-specific criminal history question, Coffey suggests
that you consider adding:
If you believe that the information above does not adequately reflect the
circumstances surrounding the case(s) listed above or if there is additional
information not included elsewhere on this application that you believe the
Company should be aware in evaluating your fitness for this position, please
provide that information below:
Adjudication Relevance Matrix
OFFENSE

Alcohol Consumption/Possession
Alcohol Sale to Minor
Arson
Assault/Battery/Domestic Violence (FELONY)
Assault/Battery/Domestic Violence (MISD)
Auto Theft
Burglary/Breaking and Entering/Burglar's Tools
Child Abuse/Molestation
Child Neglect/Child Endangerment (FELONY)
Child Neglect/Child Endangerment (MISD)
Child Support
Computer Crimes
Contributing to Delinquency Minor
Credit Card Abuse/Fraud/Skimming
Criminal Contempt
Criminal Mischief/Damage to Property/Vandalism
Disorderly Conduct
Drug Possession/Drug Abuse/Poss. of Drug Paraphernalia (MISD)
Drug Sale/Distribution/Manufacturing/Felony Possession
Embezzlement
Evading Arrest/Failure to Identify as Fugitive/Fugitive
Failure to File Tax Return
False Report

0 - 3 YEARS
(0 - 36 MONTHS)

3 - 7 YEARS
(37 - 84 MONTHS)

7 YEARS +
(85 + MONTHS)

Y

Y

Y

C

C

Y

N

N

N

N

N

C

C

C

Y

N

N

C

N

N

C

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

C

Y

Y

Y

Y

C

C

C

C

C

C

N

N

N

C

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

C

Y

Y

N

C

Y

N

N

C

N

N

N

C

C

Y

C

Y

Y

C

Y

Y
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: CREDIT
The use of credit is being scrutinized closely:
 What job-related insight into the applicant‟s
ability to perform the job duties do you hope to
obtain from the credit report?
 What will be your objective criteria for
evaluating applicants‟ credit reports
(employment-related reports don‟t show a credit
score)?
 Are you willing to be the EEOC‟s next test
case?
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: APPLICATION
What is your policy about incomplete or inaccurate
responses to questions on the employment
application?
Are applicants who fail to answer or lie on the
application eligible for hire? If not, are they eligible for
future consideration? (How would that person be
different from a former employee who you terminated
for dishonesty?)
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: CRIMINAL INQUIRY
When will you inquire of applicant?
•

Application?

•

Interview?

•

Post offer?

What state-specific limitations apply to the inquiry?
•

Your state

•

State the position is in

•

Candidate‟s state
Policy Considerations:
When to Run Background Checks?
 Pre-offer

 Return from extended
leave

 Upon contingent offer
 Annually
 Prior to promotion/job
change

 During investigations/
progressive discipline
 “Rumor mill” allegations
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: CRIMINAL RECORDS
What are the position-specific business
risks:
 Asset/information theft
 Risks from unsafe/negligent conduct
 Vulnerable coworkers, customers, others
 Company reputation/branding risks
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: CRIMINAL RECORDS
What about pending cases? Warrants for
arrest?
 For applicants?

 For current employees?
 Do they have a duty to report all arrests?
Tickets?
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: CRIMINAL RECORDS
What kinds of criminal record sources are relevant:
 County criminal records
 State criminal record repositories

 Multi-jurisdictional databases
 Federal criminal records
 International records
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: CRIMINAL RECORDS

What jurisdictions will be searched:
 County of residence
 Those disclosed by the applicant (address history,
previous employment locations, education locations,
etc.)
 Those identified in identity research
 How far back? (7 years, 10 years, more?)
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: CRIMINAL RECORDS

What names will be searched:
 Current/former names disclosed by applicant.

 Those identified in identity research.
 What about “nicknames” (“Bob” for “Robert”)
 How far back on previous names? (7 years, 10 years,
all?)
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: ADVERSE ACTION

Document:
 FCRA pre-adverse action communication on “management
review” or “not eligible” scores before putting a final decision
into place. Also, document post-adverse action
communications.
 Subsequent communications with applicant.
 Receipt and consideration of any “individualized assessment”
information from the applicant.
 Reason for any variations to guidelines.
Policy Considerations:
Contingent & Contract Workforce
How do you ensure the same “standard of care”
when dealing with contingent and contract
workers?

Stephen Robertson
Upcoming
webinars:
What Employers Need to Know About
Background Checks
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
DOT Driver Qualifications and Background
Checks
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
www.imperativeinfo.com
Also:
www.mikecoffeysphr.com
www.badhiredays.com

Contenu connexe

Plus de Imperative Information Group

Plus de Imperative Information Group (10)

Identity and Eligibility Confirmation - E-Verify and Other Tools
Identity and Eligibility Confirmation - E-Verify and Other ToolsIdentity and Eligibility Confirmation - E-Verify and Other Tools
Identity and Eligibility Confirmation - E-Verify and Other Tools
 
PPT: First Glance: The EEOC's New Guidance on Using Criminal Records
PPT: First Glance: The EEOC's New Guidance on Using Criminal RecordsPPT: First Glance: The EEOC's New Guidance on Using Criminal Records
PPT: First Glance: The EEOC's New Guidance on Using Criminal Records
 
Harassment Investigations
Harassment InvestigationsHarassment Investigations
Harassment Investigations
 
Social Media in the Workplace
Social Media in the WorkplaceSocial Media in the Workplace
Social Media in the Workplace
 
OFCCP Enforcement Trends
OFCCP Enforcement TrendsOFCCP Enforcement Trends
OFCCP Enforcement Trends
 
Backgrounds for Churches and Nonprofits
Backgrounds for Churches and NonprofitsBackgrounds for Churches and Nonprofits
Backgrounds for Churches and Nonprofits
 
Ethical Considerations in Background Investigations
Ethical Considerations in Background InvestigationsEthical Considerations in Background Investigations
Ethical Considerations in Background Investigations
 
A Brief Overview of Laws Affecting Background Checks
A Brief Overview of Laws Affecting Background ChecksA Brief Overview of Laws Affecting Background Checks
A Brief Overview of Laws Affecting Background Checks
 
The Business Case for Social Media in HR
The Business Case for Social Media in HRThe Business Case for Social Media in HR
The Business Case for Social Media in HR
 
What Job Seekers Need To Know About Background Checks
What Job  Seekers Need To Know About Background ChecksWhat Job  Seekers Need To Know About Background Checks
What Job Seekers Need To Know About Background Checks
 

Dernier

Live-Streaming in the Music Industry Webinar
Live-Streaming in the Music Industry WebinarLive-Streaming in the Music Industry Webinar
Live-Streaming in the Music Industry WebinarNathanielSchmuck
 
NASA CoCEI Scaling Strategy - November 2023
NASA CoCEI Scaling Strategy - November 2023NASA CoCEI Scaling Strategy - November 2023
NASA CoCEI Scaling Strategy - November 2023Steve Rader
 
PDT 89 - $1.4M - Seed - Plantee Innovations.pdf
PDT 89 - $1.4M - Seed - Plantee Innovations.pdfPDT 89 - $1.4M - Seed - Plantee Innovations.pdf
PDT 89 - $1.4M - Seed - Plantee Innovations.pdfHajeJanKamps
 
Project Brief & Information Architecture Report
Project Brief & Information Architecture ReportProject Brief & Information Architecture Report
Project Brief & Information Architecture Reportamberjiles31
 
Plano de marketing- inglês em formato ppt
Plano de marketing- inglês  em formato pptPlano de marketing- inglês  em formato ppt
Plano de marketing- inglês em formato pptElizangelaSoaresdaCo
 
To Create Your Own Wig Online To Create Your Own Wig Online
To Create Your Own Wig Online  To Create Your Own Wig OnlineTo Create Your Own Wig Online  To Create Your Own Wig Online
To Create Your Own Wig Online To Create Your Own Wig Onlinelng ths
 
The Vietnam Believer Newsletter_MARCH 25, 2024_EN_Vol. 003
The Vietnam Believer Newsletter_MARCH 25, 2024_EN_Vol. 003The Vietnam Believer Newsletter_MARCH 25, 2024_EN_Vol. 003
The Vietnam Believer Newsletter_MARCH 25, 2024_EN_Vol. 003believeminhh
 
Mihir Menda - Member of Supervisory Board at RMZ
Mihir Menda - Member of Supervisory Board at RMZMihir Menda - Member of Supervisory Board at RMZ
Mihir Menda - Member of Supervisory Board at RMZKanakChauhan5
 
BCE24 | Virtual Brand Ambassadors: Making Brands Personal - John Meulemans
BCE24 | Virtual Brand Ambassadors: Making Brands Personal - John MeulemansBCE24 | Virtual Brand Ambassadors: Making Brands Personal - John Meulemans
BCE24 | Virtual Brand Ambassadors: Making Brands Personal - John MeulemansBBPMedia1
 
Borderless Access - Global B2B Panel book-unlock 2024
Borderless Access - Global B2B Panel book-unlock 2024Borderless Access - Global B2B Panel book-unlock 2024
Borderless Access - Global B2B Panel book-unlock 2024Borderless Access
 
Slicing Work on Business Agility Meetup Berlin
Slicing Work on Business Agility Meetup BerlinSlicing Work on Business Agility Meetup Berlin
Slicing Work on Business Agility Meetup BerlinAnton Skornyakov
 
Tata Kelola Bisnis perushaan yang bergerak
Tata Kelola Bisnis perushaan yang bergerakTata Kelola Bisnis perushaan yang bergerak
Tata Kelola Bisnis perushaan yang bergerakEditores1
 
Intellectual Property Licensing Examples
Intellectual Property Licensing ExamplesIntellectual Property Licensing Examples
Intellectual Property Licensing Examplesamberjiles31
 
Entrepreneurship & organisations: influences and organizations
Entrepreneurship & organisations: influences and organizationsEntrepreneurship & organisations: influences and organizations
Entrepreneurship & organisations: influences and organizationsP&CO
 
Talent Management research intelligence_13 paradigm shifts_20 March 2024.pdf
Talent Management research intelligence_13 paradigm shifts_20 March 2024.pdfTalent Management research intelligence_13 paradigm shifts_20 March 2024.pdf
Talent Management research intelligence_13 paradigm shifts_20 March 2024.pdfCharles Cotter, PhD
 
Michael Vidyakin: Introduction to PMO (UA)
Michael Vidyakin: Introduction to PMO (UA)Michael Vidyakin: Introduction to PMO (UA)
Michael Vidyakin: Introduction to PMO (UA)Lviv Startup Club
 
Team B Mind Map for Organizational Chg..
Team B Mind Map for Organizational Chg..Team B Mind Map for Organizational Chg..
Team B Mind Map for Organizational Chg..dlewis191
 
Cracking the ‘Business Process Outsourcing’ Code Main.pptx
Cracking the ‘Business Process Outsourcing’ Code Main.pptxCracking the ‘Business Process Outsourcing’ Code Main.pptx
Cracking the ‘Business Process Outsourcing’ Code Main.pptxWorkforce Group
 
Q2 2024 APCO Geopolitical Radar - The Global Operating Environment for Business
Q2 2024 APCO Geopolitical Radar - The Global Operating Environment for BusinessQ2 2024 APCO Geopolitical Radar - The Global Operating Environment for Business
Q2 2024 APCO Geopolitical Radar - The Global Operating Environment for BusinessAPCO
 

Dernier (20)

Live-Streaming in the Music Industry Webinar
Live-Streaming in the Music Industry WebinarLive-Streaming in the Music Industry Webinar
Live-Streaming in the Music Industry Webinar
 
NASA CoCEI Scaling Strategy - November 2023
NASA CoCEI Scaling Strategy - November 2023NASA CoCEI Scaling Strategy - November 2023
NASA CoCEI Scaling Strategy - November 2023
 
PDT 89 - $1.4M - Seed - Plantee Innovations.pdf
PDT 89 - $1.4M - Seed - Plantee Innovations.pdfPDT 89 - $1.4M - Seed - Plantee Innovations.pdf
PDT 89 - $1.4M - Seed - Plantee Innovations.pdf
 
Investment Opportunity for Thailand's Automotive & EV Industries
Investment Opportunity for Thailand's Automotive & EV IndustriesInvestment Opportunity for Thailand's Automotive & EV Industries
Investment Opportunity for Thailand's Automotive & EV Industries
 
Project Brief & Information Architecture Report
Project Brief & Information Architecture ReportProject Brief & Information Architecture Report
Project Brief & Information Architecture Report
 
Plano de marketing- inglês em formato ppt
Plano de marketing- inglês  em formato pptPlano de marketing- inglês  em formato ppt
Plano de marketing- inglês em formato ppt
 
To Create Your Own Wig Online To Create Your Own Wig Online
To Create Your Own Wig Online  To Create Your Own Wig OnlineTo Create Your Own Wig Online  To Create Your Own Wig Online
To Create Your Own Wig Online To Create Your Own Wig Online
 
The Vietnam Believer Newsletter_MARCH 25, 2024_EN_Vol. 003
The Vietnam Believer Newsletter_MARCH 25, 2024_EN_Vol. 003The Vietnam Believer Newsletter_MARCH 25, 2024_EN_Vol. 003
The Vietnam Believer Newsletter_MARCH 25, 2024_EN_Vol. 003
 
Mihir Menda - Member of Supervisory Board at RMZ
Mihir Menda - Member of Supervisory Board at RMZMihir Menda - Member of Supervisory Board at RMZ
Mihir Menda - Member of Supervisory Board at RMZ
 
BCE24 | Virtual Brand Ambassadors: Making Brands Personal - John Meulemans
BCE24 | Virtual Brand Ambassadors: Making Brands Personal - John MeulemansBCE24 | Virtual Brand Ambassadors: Making Brands Personal - John Meulemans
BCE24 | Virtual Brand Ambassadors: Making Brands Personal - John Meulemans
 
Borderless Access - Global B2B Panel book-unlock 2024
Borderless Access - Global B2B Panel book-unlock 2024Borderless Access - Global B2B Panel book-unlock 2024
Borderless Access - Global B2B Panel book-unlock 2024
 
Slicing Work on Business Agility Meetup Berlin
Slicing Work on Business Agility Meetup BerlinSlicing Work on Business Agility Meetup Berlin
Slicing Work on Business Agility Meetup Berlin
 
Tata Kelola Bisnis perushaan yang bergerak
Tata Kelola Bisnis perushaan yang bergerakTata Kelola Bisnis perushaan yang bergerak
Tata Kelola Bisnis perushaan yang bergerak
 
Intellectual Property Licensing Examples
Intellectual Property Licensing ExamplesIntellectual Property Licensing Examples
Intellectual Property Licensing Examples
 
Entrepreneurship & organisations: influences and organizations
Entrepreneurship & organisations: influences and organizationsEntrepreneurship & organisations: influences and organizations
Entrepreneurship & organisations: influences and organizations
 
Talent Management research intelligence_13 paradigm shifts_20 March 2024.pdf
Talent Management research intelligence_13 paradigm shifts_20 March 2024.pdfTalent Management research intelligence_13 paradigm shifts_20 March 2024.pdf
Talent Management research intelligence_13 paradigm shifts_20 March 2024.pdf
 
Michael Vidyakin: Introduction to PMO (UA)
Michael Vidyakin: Introduction to PMO (UA)Michael Vidyakin: Introduction to PMO (UA)
Michael Vidyakin: Introduction to PMO (UA)
 
Team B Mind Map for Organizational Chg..
Team B Mind Map for Organizational Chg..Team B Mind Map for Organizational Chg..
Team B Mind Map for Organizational Chg..
 
Cracking the ‘Business Process Outsourcing’ Code Main.pptx
Cracking the ‘Business Process Outsourcing’ Code Main.pptxCracking the ‘Business Process Outsourcing’ Code Main.pptx
Cracking the ‘Business Process Outsourcing’ Code Main.pptx
 
Q2 2024 APCO Geopolitical Radar - The Global Operating Environment for Business
Q2 2024 APCO Geopolitical Radar - The Global Operating Environment for BusinessQ2 2024 APCO Geopolitical Radar - The Global Operating Environment for Business
Q2 2024 APCO Geopolitical Radar - The Global Operating Environment for Business
 

Background Screening Policy Considerations to Avoid Discrimination Claims

  • 1. Background Checks Under Fire: Policy Considerations to Avoid Discrimination Claims MIKE COFFEY, SPHR PRESIDENT I M P E R AT I V E I N F O R M AT I O N GROUP
  • 2. Mike Coffey, SPHR Not a lawyer! Just a smart guy with some street cred. Get good legal advice! • President Imperative Information Group
  • 3. WHY EMPLOYERS RUN BACKGROUND CHECKS
  • 4. WHY EMPLOYERS RUN BACKGROUND CHECKS
  • 5. TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
  • 6. PROTECTED CLASSES UNDER TITLE VII     Race Color Sex National origin  Religion
  • 7. EEOC  Federal law enforcement agency  Not rulemaking agency  2,500+ employees
  • 8. EEOC  5 commissioners  Currently 3 Democrats and 2 Republicans  Commissioner Jenny Yang approved by Senate April 2013 Ms. Yang represents employees nationwide in complex, civil rights class actions and wage and hour collective actions. - Cohen Milstein bio
  • 9. OTHER TITLE VII ENFORCEMENT  State fair employment practices agencies can also enforce Title VII  Individuals can also file individual lawsuits Courthouse
  • 10. DISPARATE TREATMENT  Disparate Treatment - intentional discrimination against someone in a protected class where there is not a bona fide occupational qualification.
  • 11. DISPARATE IMPACT  Disparate impact - seemingly neutral policies without business necessity that have adverse impacts on protected classes (“disparate impact” - see Griggs v. Duke Power Company)  “Business necessity” –  manifest relationship to employment role  with no viable alternatives to qualify
  • 12. DISPARATE IMPACT “…good intent or absence of discriminatory intent does not redeem employment procedures or testing mechanisms that operate as „built-in headwinds‟ for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring job capability.” Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger Griggs v. Duke Power
  • 13. TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 When reviewing criminal records, an employer must consider the Green factors (Green v. Missouri Pacific Railroad):  Nature of the offense,  The time elapsed,  The nature of the job, In non-conviction cases (arrests, dismissals, etc.), employers should also consider the reasonable likelihood that the person engaged in the underlying conduct. See the previous EEOC Guidance: EEOC Policy Statement on the Issue of Conviction Records under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (1987) and Policy Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest Records in Employment Decisions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (1990)
  • 14. TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 Criminal Records Brightline Rule: Have you ever been arrested?  No  Yes (please deposit your application in the trashcan on your way out)
  • 15. TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 Criminal Records Brightline Rule: “Clean background check required” “No felonies allowed” “No convictions for theft or dishonesty.”
  • 16. EEOC ACTIVITY 02/22/2012 Strategic Plan for FY 2012-2016  Combat employment discrimination through strategic law enforcement.  Prevent employment discrimination through education and outreach  Deliver excellent and consistent service through a skilled and diverse workforce and effective systems.
  • 18. EEOC V. FREEMAN COMPANIES “Careful and appropriate use of criminal history information is an important, and in many cases essential, part of the employment process of employers throughout the United States. As Freeman points out, even the EEOC conducts criminal background investigations as a condition of employment for all employees, and conducts credit background checks on approximately 90 percent of its positions.” -- U.S. District Judge Roger W. Titus August 9, 2013
  • 19. EEOC V. FREEMAN COMPANIES The EEOC‟s case contained "a plethora of errors and analytical fallacies" that made the conclusions "completely unreliable." The EEOC‟s expert "cherry-picked" data and examined the wrong time period when reviewing Freeman's records. -- U.S. District Judge Roger W. Titus August 9, 2013
  • 20. EEOC V. KAPLAN HIGHER EDUCATION CORP. In January 2013, this case was dismissed by the federal judge after Kaplan demonstrated that the EEOC used credit in hiring its own employees using rationale similar to Kaplan‟s: “overdue just debts increase temptation to commit illegal or unethical acts as a means of gaining funds to meet financial obligations.”
  • 22. JUNE 2013 CASE FILINGS
  • 23. JUNE 2013 CASE FILINGS
  • 24. HOW MANY DISPARATE IMPACT CASES RELATED TO CRIMINAL HISTORY HAVE PLAINTIFFS WON SINCE 1975?
  • 25. OFCCP
  • 26. STATE EEO LAWS Many states have their own equal employment opportunity or human rights laws.  Washington state and Hawaii will not allow employers to consider any criminal records older than ten years.  At least 7 states have “job-relatedness” requirements for the consideration of criminal records
  • 28. “Ban the Box”  Massachusetts, Minnesota, Hawaii, & Rhode Island: Public and private employers may not inquire about criminal records on the initial written application.  Connecticut & New Mexico: Public employers may not inquire about criminal records on the initial written application.  More than 2 dozen cities have passed similar ordinances including Philadelphia, Baltimore, Memphis, San Francisco, and Seattle.
  • 33. CRIMINAL OFFENDERS NOT A PROTECTED CLASS
  • 47. How to respond to the EEOC’s individualized assessment guidance?
  • 48. Add individualized assessment on the employment application? Following your application‟s state-specific criminal history question, Coffey suggests that you consider adding: If you believe that the information above does not adequately reflect the circumstances surrounding the case(s) listed above or if there is additional information not included elsewhere on this application that you believe the Company should be aware in evaluating your fitness for this position, please provide that information below:
  • 49. Add individualized assessment to the FCRA pre-adverse action notice? Insert: If you believe that there is additional information that may help us better evaluate your fitness for this position in light of the information in the attached consumer report, please contact us immediately.
  • 52. Relation to Other Federal Laws
  • 54. Ban the Box (backdoor version)
  • 55. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Smart employers will have polices in place before background results are requested. Always consult with your background screening partner and legal counsel before creating new policies in this area.
  • 56. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: CRIMINAL RECORDS How might past behavior predict on-the-job behavior? =
  • 57. ADJUDICATION RELEVANCE MATRIX Position-specific (or job class-specific?) criminal offense guidelines (in line with state laws): Yes: Eligible for hire (Y) Corporate Review: Management review of offense, time that has passed, and applicant‟s whole picture (C) or (R) No: Not eligible for hire (N) SHOULD BE LIMITED IN APPLICATION
  • 58. Adjudication Relevance Matrix OFFENSE Alcohol Consumption/Possession Alcohol Sale to Minor Arson Assault/Battery/Domestic Violence (FELONY) Assault/Battery/Domestic Violence (MISD) Auto Theft Burglary/Breaking and Entering/Burglar's Tools Child Abuse/Molestation Child Neglect/Child Endangerment (FELONY) Child Neglect/Child Endangerment (MISD) Child Support Computer Crimes Contributing to Delinquency Minor Credit Card Abuse/Fraud/Skimming Criminal Contempt Criminal Mischief/Damage to Property/Vandalism Disorderly Conduct Drug Possession/Drug Abuse/Poss. of Drug Paraphernalia (MISD) Drug Sale/Distribution/Manufacturing/Felony Possession Embezzlement Evading Arrest/Failure to Identify as Fugitive/Fugitive Failure to File Tax Return False Report 0 - 3 YEARS (0 - 36 MONTHS) 3 - 7 YEARS (37 - 84 MONTHS) 7 YEARS + (85 + MONTHS) Y Y Y C C Y N N N N N C C C Y N N C N N C N N N N N N N C Y Y Y Y C C C C C C N N N C Y Y N Y Y C Y Y N C Y N N C N N N C C Y C Y Y C Y Y
  • 59. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: CRIMINAL INQUIRY Please list all misdemeanor and felony criminal matters, other than minor traffic safety violations for which no arrest was made, in which you were convicted, served probation, participated in deferred adjudication or other program to avoid a conviction, or made restitution or participated in pre-trial diversion or other program to avoid prosecution. Disclosure of interaction with the criminal justice system will not necessarily eliminate you from consideration for employment. Remember that some states’ laws limit the inquiries that may be made!
  • 60. Policy Considerations: Criminal Inquiry Following your application‟s state-specific criminal history question, Coffey suggests that you consider adding: If you believe that the information above does not adequately reflect the circumstances surrounding the case(s) listed above or if there is additional information not included elsewhere on this application that you believe the Company should be aware in evaluating your fitness for this position, please provide that information below:
  • 61. Adjudication Relevance Matrix OFFENSE Alcohol Consumption/Possession Alcohol Sale to Minor Arson Assault/Battery/Domestic Violence (FELONY) Assault/Battery/Domestic Violence (MISD) Auto Theft Burglary/Breaking and Entering/Burglar's Tools Child Abuse/Molestation Child Neglect/Child Endangerment (FELONY) Child Neglect/Child Endangerment (MISD) Child Support Computer Crimes Contributing to Delinquency Minor Credit Card Abuse/Fraud/Skimming Criminal Contempt Criminal Mischief/Damage to Property/Vandalism Disorderly Conduct Drug Possession/Drug Abuse/Poss. of Drug Paraphernalia (MISD) Drug Sale/Distribution/Manufacturing/Felony Possession Embezzlement Evading Arrest/Failure to Identify as Fugitive/Fugitive Failure to File Tax Return False Report 0 - 3 YEARS (0 - 36 MONTHS) 3 - 7 YEARS (37 - 84 MONTHS) 7 YEARS + (85 + MONTHS) Y Y Y C C Y N N N N N C C C Y N N C N N C N N N N N N N C Y Y Y Y C C C C C C N N N C Y Y N Y Y C Y Y N C Y N N C N N N C C Y C Y Y C Y Y
  • 62. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: CREDIT The use of credit is being scrutinized closely:  What job-related insight into the applicant‟s ability to perform the job duties do you hope to obtain from the credit report?  What will be your objective criteria for evaluating applicants‟ credit reports (employment-related reports don‟t show a credit score)?  Are you willing to be the EEOC‟s next test case?
  • 63. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: APPLICATION What is your policy about incomplete or inaccurate responses to questions on the employment application? Are applicants who fail to answer or lie on the application eligible for hire? If not, are they eligible for future consideration? (How would that person be different from a former employee who you terminated for dishonesty?)
  • 64. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: CRIMINAL INQUIRY When will you inquire of applicant? • Application? • Interview? • Post offer? What state-specific limitations apply to the inquiry? • Your state • State the position is in • Candidate‟s state
  • 65. Policy Considerations: When to Run Background Checks?  Pre-offer  Return from extended leave  Upon contingent offer  Annually  Prior to promotion/job change  During investigations/ progressive discipline  “Rumor mill” allegations
  • 66. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: CRIMINAL RECORDS What are the position-specific business risks:  Asset/information theft  Risks from unsafe/negligent conduct  Vulnerable coworkers, customers, others  Company reputation/branding risks
  • 67. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: CRIMINAL RECORDS What about pending cases? Warrants for arrest?  For applicants?  For current employees?  Do they have a duty to report all arrests? Tickets?
  • 68. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: CRIMINAL RECORDS What kinds of criminal record sources are relevant:  County criminal records  State criminal record repositories  Multi-jurisdictional databases  Federal criminal records  International records
  • 69. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: CRIMINAL RECORDS What jurisdictions will be searched:  County of residence  Those disclosed by the applicant (address history, previous employment locations, education locations, etc.)  Those identified in identity research  How far back? (7 years, 10 years, more?)
  • 70. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: CRIMINAL RECORDS What names will be searched:  Current/former names disclosed by applicant.  Those identified in identity research.  What about “nicknames” (“Bob” for “Robert”)  How far back on previous names? (7 years, 10 years, all?)
  • 71. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: ADVERSE ACTION Document:  FCRA pre-adverse action communication on “management review” or “not eligible” scores before putting a final decision into place. Also, document post-adverse action communications.  Subsequent communications with applicant.  Receipt and consideration of any “individualized assessment” information from the applicant.  Reason for any variations to guidelines.
  • 72. Policy Considerations: Contingent & Contract Workforce How do you ensure the same “standard of care” when dealing with contingent and contract workers? Stephen Robertson
  • 73. Upcoming webinars: What Employers Need to Know About Background Checks Wednesday, November 20, 2013 DOT Driver Qualifications and Background Checks Tuesday, December 10, 2013 www.imperativeinfo.com Also: www.mikecoffeysphr.com www.badhiredays.com

Notes de l'éditeur

  1. OK, maybe HR credibility isn’t the same as “street cred,” but, hey, I am a well-rated presenter at HRSouthwest and SHRM chapters around the country.I’m a 20-year HR veteran and a Senior Professional in Human Resources. I’m also 2013 President for the Fort Worth Human Resource Management Association. Additionally, I sit on the board of the Texas Association of Business.I’ve delivered dozens of presentations to SHRM chapters and conferences around the country and dozens of webinars on a variety of topics. Hit up my website if you need a speaker for an upcoming event. http://imperativeinfo.com/speaker-availability/All that said, I’m not a lawyer and I’m especially not YOUR lawyer. Wiser people than I decline to express their opinion for fear of some knucklehead misapplying what they said and getting them sued. Just realize that you didn’t pay me for this presentation and you might only be getting what you paid for. Be prudent. Use this information to start a discussion in your organization and with your own legal counsel. If they disagree with me, go get another lawyer.There is a healthy dose of the Gospel According to Coffey (in other words, opinion) in this webinar and handout. I hope it is helpful to you!
  2. As we review the issues surrounding employers’ use of criminal records, it is important to keep in mind why we care about applicants’ backgrounds. Employers run background checks to protect the public, their employees, their assets, and their reputations. Many also run background checks to ensure legal and regulatory compliance. After all of these issues, employers worry about litigation costs. Ultimately, employers have a much higher risk of lawsuits stemming from employees’ negligent or malevolent behavior than they might face from applicants who believe that they weren’t treated fairly during the employment process. However, both risks can be mitigated through reasonable policies and procedures and good management training.
  3. BadHireDays.com has many cases studies about individuals with criminal histories who later brought injury to their employer or others – and how employers can avoid making the same mistakes.
  4. President Johnson signed Title VII in 1964 and President Bush signed amendments to it in 1991. Also, be aware that other laws such as the ADA, ADEA, and GINA protect other groups of workers against employment discrimination.
  5. The EEOC was formed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and is charged with enforcing the Act. They are a law enforcement agency – not a rule-making body. The only power they have is to use federal funds to finance investigations and bring civil suits against employers. They still have to prove their cases in court like any other plaintiff. Courts have sometimes used the EEOC’s guidance documents in their interpretation of Title VII but they have also criticized both the agency and their guidance documents.
  6. All but two states also have agencies that are able to bring suits to enforce Title VII. Individuals who believe that have been wronged can also file suit, after they have first filed a charge with the EEOC.
  7. In 1971, the Supreme Court ruled in the Griggs case that Duke Power illegally discriminated against black applicants and employees by requiring that all supervisors have a high school diploma and pass an IQ test. Because the black population was less likely than the white population to have a diploma at that time in North Carolina and scored lower on IQ tests, the court decided that the policy had a “disparate impact” on the black population. Duke Power was unable to establish a business necessity for these requirements (which they applied apparently equally to both black and white supervisor candidates) because they did have some supervisors who did not meet the requirements and they seemed to perform as well as other supervisors who did meet the requirements.What is interesting in the Griggs case is that the court recognized that Duke Power was not trying to intentionally discriminate against black applicants – in fact, they had a program in place to help black applicants achieve their high school diplomas.In his decision, Chief Justice Burger wrote “good intent or absence of discriminatory intent does not redeem employment procedures or testing mechanisms that operate as ‘built-in headwinds’ for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring job capability.”More reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co.
  8. In a case involving a criminal record exclusion, the Eighth Circuit in its 1975 Green v. Missouri Pacific Railroad decision, held that it was discriminatory under Title VII for an employer to “follow the policy of disqualifying for employment any applicant with a conviction for any crime other than a minor traffic offense.” The Eighth Circuit identified three factors (the “Green factors”) that were relevant to assessing whether an exclusion is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity: The nature and gravity of the offense or conduct;The time that has passed since the offense or conduct and/or completion of the sentence; andThe nature of the job held or sought. The EEOC’s previous guidance documents included the Green factors.
  9. Don’t do this.Let me repeat: Don’t. Do. This.Or anything similar, for that matter. Don’t create “no convictions” rules or even “no felony convictions” rules.“Brightline rules” are overly broad policies that do not consider the specifics of the job or reasonable alternatives to the policy that might result in less of an adverse impact on a protected class. They will get you sued for disparate impact.The EEOC’s new guidance document points to several studies showing that black men are likely to be arrested and convicted of criminal offenses than the white population. Therefore, policies that are not tailored to business necessity will likely result in a disparate impact on black job seekers.
  10. Don’t do this.Let me repeat: Don’t. Do. This.Or anything similar, for that matter. Don’t create “no convictions” rules or even “no felony convictions” rules.Brightline rules are overly broad policies that do not consider the specifics of the job or reasonable alternatives to the policy that might result in less of an adverse impact on a protected class. They will get you sued for disparate impact.The EEOC’s new guidance document points to several studies showing that black men are likely to be arrested and convicted of criminal offenses than the white population. Therefore, policies that are not tailored to business necessity will likely result in a disparate impact on black job seekers.
  11. In January 2012, Pepsico Beverages entered into a conciliation agreement with the EEOC for $3.13 million based on allegations that Pepsi allegedly discriminated against African-American applicants based on use of their criminal histories in the hiring process.Pepsi also agreed to change their policies but didn’t admit to any wrongdoing. $3.13 million dollars isn’t anything to sneeze at but it is probably less than Pepsi would have spent responding to a multi-year EEOC investigation and a federal lawsuit. The publicity would have also been bad for Pepsi if the EEOC, the National Employment Law Project, and other community-based advocacy groups began banging the discrimination drum in many of the communities in which Pepsi sells its product.The EEOC has a history of drawing out investigations and civil cases to run up the expenses of the defendants in order to pressure them to settle their cases and quickly paying the EEOC off may have been Pepsico’s best business choice.
  12. In 2009, the EEOC filed a discrimination lawsuit against Freeman Companies for rejecting “job applicants based on their credit history and if they have had one or more various types of criminal charges or convictions.” Freeman is a corporate event and convention planning company.According to the EEOC:Freeman’s use of “criminal checks” for job applicants has an adverse effect on male applicants because they are more likely to fail the criminal background checks than female applicants. (This is a novel approach! Because men are much more likely to be criminal offenders than women, if the EEOC prevails on this claim, it will basically be creating a protected class for male criminal offenders.)Freeman’s use of “criminal checks” for job applicants has an adverse effect on African American applicants because they are more likely to fail the criminal background checks than white applicants.Freeman’s use of “credit checks” for job applicants has an adverse effect on African American applicants because they are more likely to fail the credit check than white applicants.Included in the EEOC’s group of represented applicants are a number who were disqualified from employment by Freeman not due to the nature of their criminal histories but because they failed to accurately answer Freeman’s criminal history inquiry on the employment application.According to case filings, Freeman has a fairly robust criminal records policy that tied specific offenses to particular roles.Freeman’s Motion for Summary Judgment (requesting that the court dismiss the EEOC’s case) pointed to a number of errors in the EEOC’s statistical claims.In the August 9, 2013 opinion granting Freeman’s Motion for Summary Judgment (almost a full four years after the lawsuit was filed), Judge Roger W. Titus criticized the EEOC’s statistical expert, citing "a plethora of errors and analytical fallacies" that made the conclusions "completely unreliable." The statistician "cherry-picked" data and examined the wrong time period when reviewing Freeman's records, the judge said.The judge also wrote: “Careful and appropriate use of criminal history information is an important, and in many cases essential, part of the employment process of employers throughout the United States. As Freeman points out, even the EEOC conducts criminal background investigations as a condition of employment for all employees, and conducts creditbackground checks on approximately 90 percent of its positions.”Also, he wrote: “…the EEOC has made no effort to break down what is clearly a multi-faceted, multi-step policy. Though it is theorectically possible that one or more of Defendant’s background check considerations causes a disparate impact on certain classes, the EEOC has failed to demonstrate which such factor is the alleged culprit. Accordingly, the EEOChas failed to establish this element of its case, and summary judgment must be entered for Defendant.”8:09-cv-02573-RWT EEOC v. Freeman
  13. In 2009, the EEOC filed a discrimination lawsuit against Freeman Companies for rejecting “job applicants based on their credit history and if they have had one or more various types of criminal charges or convictions.” Freeman is a corporate event and convention planning company.According to the EEOC:Freeman’s use of “criminal checks” for job applicants has an adverse effect on male applicants because they are more likely to fail the criminal background checks than female applicants. (This is a novel approach! Because men are much more likely to be criminal offenders than women, if the EEOC prevails on this claim, it will basically be creating a protected class for male criminal offenders.)Freeman’s use of “criminal checks” for job applicants has an adverse effect on African American applicants because they are more likely to fail the criminal background checks than white applicants.Freeman’s use of “credit checks” for job applicants has an adverse effect on African American applicants because they are more likely to fail the credit check than white applicants.Included in the EEOC’s group of represented applicants are a number who were disqualified from employment by Freeman not due to the nature of their criminal histories but because they failed to accurately answer Freeman’s criminal history inquiry on the employment application.According to case filings, Freeman has a fairly robust criminal records policy that tied specific offenses to particular roles.Freeman’s Motion for Summary Judgment (requesting that the court dismiss the EEOC’s case) pointed to a number of errors in the EEOC’s statistical claims.In the August 9, 2013 opinion granting Freeman’s Motion for Summary Judgment (almost a full four years after the lawsuit was filed), Judge Roger W. Titus criticized the EEOC’s statistical expert, citing "a plethora of errors and analytical fallacies" that made the conclusions "completely unreliable." The statistician "cherry-picked" data and examined the wrong time period when reviewing Freeman's records, the judge said.The judge also wrote: “Careful and appropriate use of criminal history information is an important, and in many cases essential, part of the employment process of employers throughout the United States. As Freeman points out, even the EEOC conducts criminal background investigations as a condition of employment for all employees, and conducts creditbackground checks on approximately 90 percent of its positions.”Also, he wrote: “…the EEOC has made no effort to break down what is clearly a multi-faceted, multi-step policy. Though it is theorectically possible that one or more of Defendant’s background check considerations causes a disparate impact on certain classes, the EEOC has failed to demonstrate which such factor is the alleged culprit. Accordingly, the EEOChas failed to establish this element of its case, and summary judgment must be entered for Defendant.”8:09-cv-02573-RWT EEOC v. Freeman
  14. The EEOC filed a federal suit against Kaplan Higher Education Corporation, claiming that Kaplan “has rejected job applicants based on their credit history. This practice has an unlawful discriminatory impact because of race and is neither job-related nor justified by business necessity.”In January 2013, this case was dismissed by the federal judge after Kaplan demonstrated that the EEOC used credit in hiring its own employees using rationale similar to Kaplan’s: “overdue just debts increase temptation to commit illegal or unethical acts as a means of gaining funds to meet financial obligations”.Because Kaplan also was not required to collect applicant demographic data, the EEOC was also unable to demonstrate that Kaplan’s process created discriminatory outcomes. This is best summarized by David Foley at his Labor and Employment Law Blog at http://laborrelated.blogspot.com/2013/01/jujitsu-in-eeoc-v-kaplan.html:Kaplan's second and critical act of Jujitsu came when it challenged the EEOC's prima facie case.  The EEOC's prima facie case was based on evidence that the applicants that Kaplan rejected on the basis of credit reports were disproportionately minorities.  To establish this prima facie case, the EEOC needed one critical piece of data: the race/ethnicity of the applicants.  Getting this information was an obstacle for the EEOC because Kaplan did not record the race of its applicants (the EEOC attempted to no avail to argue that the EEOC's model guidelines for employers call for gathering and retaining such information). In order to find out the respective races of the applicants, the EEOC used their names and presumably their social security numbers to look up information about them from their local departments of motor vehicles.  However, only 14 of the 38 states from which the applicants hailed had records of race associated with drivers licenses.  For those states that did not have racial self-identification on the drivers license, the EEOC ordered the drivers license photographs of the applicants...With the pictures in hand, the EEOC had a panel of five "expert" "race raters" look at the pictures and determine the race of the applicants...You might be wondering, "What kind of credential does an expert race rater have?" The judge also wondered and was not at all impressed with their varied credentials of the raters who held advanced degrees in either economics, human development, psychology, or cultural anthropology, and had no established background in visually identifying an individual's race.  Further discrediting the "race rater" panel was its inability for 80% of its raters to reach a consensus as to the race of 11.7% of the applicants. The lack of expertise and inability to reliably judge race was bad enough for the EEOC, but Kaplan's second Jujitsu move came in when they showed that the EEOC's own guidelines (the ones they tried to employ against Kaplan) deem visual identification as an undesirable way of identifying race and ethnicity. Thus Judge Gaughan noted that the "EEOC itself frowns on the very practice it seeks to rely on in this case" and ultimately dismissed the complaint on summary judgement for lack of a prima facie case.
  15. Peoplemark is a staffing company in the Northeast. EEOC conducted a 3-year investigation into claims filed by Sherri Scott, a two-time felon with convictions for housebreaking and larceny who Peoplemark chose not to hire because of her criminal record. The EEOC filed suit in May 2008, claiming that PeopleMark had a “blanket policy” of not hiring former offenders. PeopleMark was forced to provide 18,000 pages of documents with the detailed personnel information of the group the EEOC sought to represent (protected classes with criminal histories). Almost a year after filing the suit, the EEOC finally identified the 286 individuals who composed the class in the suit. PeopleMark realized that they had actually hired 22% of the people in the class and pointed this out to the EEOC. The EEOC continued to litigate the case anyway. After failing to designate a statistical expert to support their allegations in accordance with the court’s scheduling order, the EEOC finally dismissed the case. (In other words, the EEOC could not find a statistician who could testify that PeopleMark’s polices had an adverse impact on protected class applicants.) PeopleMark made a motion for recovery of their attorney and expert witness fees. The EEOC’s failure to pursue the statistical component of its case led the Court to find that an award of $751,942 in “attorneys’ fees is appropriate because of the unnecessary burden imposed on defendant.”
  16. On June 11, 2013, the EEOC filed suit Title VII separate disparate impact claims against BMW Manufacturing and Dollar General.In the BMW case, the EEOC claims that BMW’s requirements that their logistics provider (basically, a contract staffing firm) follow BMW’s criminal history guidelines makes BMW a joint employer. The EEOC complaint claims that BMW’s previous logistics provider applied their own criminal history guidelines, rather than BMW’s and when BMW changed providers, they required the new provider to use BMW’s guidelines, which eliminated 69 of the previous logistics providers’ employees from continuing to work at the BMW facility. Some of these employees had been working at BMW’s facility for over a decade (for the previous logistics provider). According to the EEOC’s filing, the BMW policy prohibited employment of individuals convicted of:“’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.”Remember that the Green v. Missouri Pacific case said that employers must consider the nature and gravity of the offense or conduct; the time that has passed since the offense or conduct and/or completion of the sentence; and the nature of the job held or sought. Depending on the specific facts related to the individuals’ excluded for employment, BMW may have a hard time defending this blanket rule that has consideration of how long ago the offense occurred. If the EEOC is able to support the argument that the policy resulted in a statistically disparate impact, then BMW may have to demonstrate the business necessity of their policy. The fact that many of the excluded employees had worked in the BMW facility for the previous logistics contractor, possibly without any safety or performance concerns, may undermine BMW’s business necessity argument.Of course, it is important to remember that the EEOC’s complaint only reflects their view of the case and they are not going to include any information that might weaken their case!
  17. On June 11, 2013, the EEOC filed suit Title VII separate disparate impact claims against BMW Manufacturing and Dollar General.The EEOC’s claim against Dollar General argues that their use of criminal history information resulted in “ongoing, nationwide race discrimination against Black Applicants in violation of Title VII.”According to the EEOC, Dollar General’s background screening provider provides a “pass” or “fail” rating to Dollar General, apparently without providing them the details of the offenses found. This pass or fail rating is based upon an adjudication matrix provided by Dollar General. The EEOC claims in the complaint:Defendant’s [Dollar General’s] utilization of its criminal convictions policy has not been demonstrated to be and is not job-related and consistent with business necessity. 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 the 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.The complaint also includes examples of the felony convictions that mandate a “fail” rating:Felony flagrant non-support (failure to pay child or spousal support) – disqualified for 10 yearsFelony possession of drug paraphernalia – disqualified for 10 yearsFelony illegal dumping – disqualified for 3 yearsMisdemeanor improper supervision of a child – disqualified for three yearsMisdemeanor reckless driving – allowed one charge in 5 yearsMisdemeanor failure to file an income tax return – allowed 1 charge in 5 years.The complaint does not include Dollar General’s full list of offenses that would lead to a “fail” rating for the applicant. It appears from the EEOC’s complaint that the policy is strictly pass/fail, with no room for management consideration of individual circumstances in grey areas. This may be a problem for Dollar General as this case proceeds.According to the complaint, 7% of non-black employees were eliminated from consideration based on their criminal history while 10% of black applicants were eliminated. The EEOC purports to represent all black applicants who were eliminated based upon their criminal history. There are several problems with the EEOC’s complaint. First, though they list the example offenses above that result in exclusion (presumably because they believe they are unreasonable), they don’t indicate how many applicants have been excluded based upon these offenses. From Imperative’s own experience, theft and violent offenses are more likely to be found than most of the examples above. It is likely that the court would find that many of Dollar General’s exclusions make sense.Even if some of the disqualifying offenses and time periods are found to be unreasonable, it is very likely that many of the disqualified individuals had offenses that were job-relevant within time periods and meet the business necessity standard. Removing those individuals from the pool of applicants may significantly shrink the 3% difference between excluded black and excluded non-black applicants, making it hard for the EEOC to prove their case statistically.Both of these will be cases to watch.
  18. The OFCCP has also expressed concerns about disparate impact in federal contractors’ employment practices. In January, 2013, the OFCCP issued Directive 306, “Complying with Nondiscrimination Provisions: Criminal Record Restrictions and Discrimination Based on Race and National Origin.” adopting the EEOC’s guidance document on the use of criminal records in employment decisions. http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/directives/dir306.htm
  19. Hawaii, Kansas, Ohio, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin have job-relatedness requirements along the lines of the Green factors. There may be many more at different state and municipal levels.
  20. At least ten states (Illinois, Oregon, Washington, Connecticut, Hawaii, Colorado, California, Maryland, Nevada, and Vermont) restrict the use of credit reports in making employment decisions. Some of these restrictions simply require that the review be “job related” while others prohibit or delay until late in the hiring process the use of credit reports.The use of credit reports as a predictor of theft or dishonesty has not been validated. In fact, the few studies on the topic suggest that there is no correlation between poor credit and dishonesty or poor job performance. Imperative recommends that credit reports be limited to roles where an individual will be making financial decisions on behalf of the employer or clients, using the credit report as a means of measuring how they manage their own business as a predictor of how they will manage the employer’s business.
  21. “The Box” is the criminal history inquiry on the employment application. Proponents want to ban the box under the belief that former offenders will suffer less discrimination if employers first meet them in an interview. The underlying assumption is that employers automatically disqualify applicants with criminal histories without regard for the relevance of the offense to the position.This is a bad idea that is also being promoted by the EEOC. We talk more about it later.
  22. Now, on to the new guidance…On July 24, 2013, the attorneys general for nine states sent a letter to the Chair of the EEOC challenging the new guidance.http://www.shrm.org/legalissues/federalresources/pages/attorneys-general-criminal-background-check.aspxOn August 29, 2013, the EEOC’s chair issued a response to the AGs’ letter.http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/wysk/criminal_background_checks.cfmOn November 4, 2013, Texas filed a federal lawsuit against the EEOC seeking an injunction to prevent the EEOC from implementing its guidance document.https://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagnews/release.php?print=1&id=4570
  23. Title VII was last revised with regard to these issues in 1991, codifying the legislative history from Griggs v. Duke Power forward.
  24. Most of Imperative’s clients run the background check pre-offer. Many run smaller background checks on employees on an annual or bi-annual basis. We recommend that you run driving histories annually on drivers and others who operate in a safety-sensitive environment.
  25. Remember that many people who can’t get past employers’ background checks often work for temporary agencies or set up their own contracting or consulting businesses! HR and Procurement need to work together!Stephen Robertson’s story is available at Bad Hire Days: http://www.badhiredays.com/2011/08/29/two-employers-two-victims-two-convictions-for-computer-guru
  26. If so, email or call me!