I see your wild sexual harassment lawsuit and, after the jump, raise you this doozie…
Better call, Saul! Even Walter White and Jesse Pinkman were like, WTH?!?
Monday kinda sucked for the EEOC.
The agency that made scrutiny of employee background checks a top priority under its current Strategic Enforcement Plan has been ordered by a federal court to turn over its own background check policy to an employer whom it is suing for a criminal background check policy that allegedly had a disparate impact on black employees.
*** smiles, grinds teeth, and inhales deeply ***
More after the jump…
* * *
Across the country, many states and localities have enacted ban-the-box legislation. In a nutshell, ban the box means that employers cannot inquire about an applicant’s criminal history until after the first job interview.
For example, Philadelphia has ban the box. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania does not.
Still, Pennsylvania does have the Criminal History Record Information Act. But, indeed, a Pennsylvania federal court ruled on Wednesday that the Act and ban the box are two separate things:
Halftime of the Eagles-Colts game. So, I only have 15 minutes to crank this one out. Here we go…
Two new bills in the House to watch.
1. The Litigation Oversight Act of 2014: This bill would amend Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to require the EEOC Commissions to decide by “majority vote whether the Commission shall commence or intervene in litigation involving multiple plaintiffs, or an allegation of systemic discrimination or a pattern or practice of discrimination.”
I give this somewhere between between a snowball’s chance in hell and hell freezes over chance of passing.
2. The Certainty in Enforcement Act of 2014 would also amend Title VII to allow employers “to engage in an employment practice that is required by Federal, State, or local law, in an area such as, but not limited to, health care, childcare, in-home services, policing, security, education, finance, employee benefits, and fiduciary duties.” The intent here is to hamstring the EEOC from scrutinizing background checks of current and potential employees.
Like my daughter in a bumper car, this too shouldn’t get far.
Come January 1, most NJ employers will no longer be able to ask about an applicant’s criminal record during the initial employment application process.
That’s right.
Ban the box will be b-b-b-b-banned in the Garden State!
More on the new law after the jump…
Many cities in the Mid-Atlantic region (Philadelphia, Newark) have passed legislation that makes it illegal for employers to inquire about criminal history early on in the job application / interview process. The State of Delaware too has passed this so-called “ban the box” rule.
Last week, a New Jersey Senate Committee recommended passage of ban-the-box legislation in the Garden State.
Under the proposed NJ law, an employer may not inquire (orally or in writing) regarding an applicant’s criminal record during the initial employment application process. Although after the initial application process has concluded, then this information would be fair game.
Recently, several local lawyers and I participated in a labor and employment law roundtable for The Legal Intelligencer.
Actually, the table was rectangular. But, the coffee and muffins were free, so I didn’t complain.
Well, not until I dropped my pants and mooned the employee-rights lawyers on the panel. Trust me, they had it coming.
When the Fair Credit Reporting Act comes a knock knock knockin’ on HR’s door, who among you, will answer the call?
Fear not, kids. Cinch on your big boy/girl underpants! My colleague, Stacey Schor, in this post, has outlined a recent federal court decision that provides valuable guidance on how employers can comply with the strict requirements of FCRA, so that your hiring decisions are FCRA-bulletproofed.
This one goes out to all out FCRA freaks fans. Holler if you hear me!
Second verse, same as the first.
Back in March, I reported here that a bill introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives, known as the Equal Employment for All Act, would amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to prohibit the use of consumer credit checks against prospective and current employees for the purposes of making adverse employment decisions.
Yesterday, it was the Senate’s turn to get in on the act; the Equal Employment for All Act, that is.
(See how I did that?)
Details on the Senate bill, what it would mean for employers, and its chances of passage after the jump…
Late last year, in this post, I highlighted the six issues that the United States Equal Employment Commission prioritized in its Strategic Enforcement Plan. Numero uno is eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring.
Even before it released its Strategic Enforcement Plan, earlier in 2012, the EEOC telegraphed that it would closely scrutinize criminal background checks employers run on job applicants to determine whether they may disparately impact minorities.
But even before that, in 2009, the EEOC came out guns blazing, when it announced a lawsuit against Freeman (also known as the Freeman Companies), a nationwide convention, exhibition and corporate events marketing company. In it’s lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that Freeman unlawfully “rejected job applicants based on their credit history and if they have had one or more of various types of criminal charges or convictions.”
The Employer Handbook Blog