Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A change in discrimination laws

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A change in discrimination laws

    The answer we've given many, many times will soon be obsolete.

    http://blogs.lawyers.com/2012/05/eeo...ainst-ex-cons/
    The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

  • #2
    Yep - I have seen that on several websites.
    Too often we underestimate the power of a touch, a smile, a kind word, a listening ear, an honest compliment, or the smallest act of caring, all of which have the potential to turn a life around. Leo Buscaglia

    Live in peace with animals. Animals bring love to our hearts and warmth to our souls.

    Comment


    • #3
      Thank you for sharing that. Sadly, it is very timely.
      I post with the full knowledge and support of my employer, though the opinions rendered are my own and not necessarily representative of their position. In other words, I'm a free agent.

      Comment


      • #4
        Uh, until Congress decides to amend Title VII to include criminal conviction history, isn't the EEOC hugely overstepping? Their role is to enforce existing discrimination laws, not to create policy for laws that don't yet exist.

        Comment


        • #5
          Beth, that is what one of the websites I saw it on said - may not be enforceable. It said more or less -because the EEOC did not allow for public comment, it is unclear whether or not the EEOC's new Guidance will be upheld by the courts. Unlike Congress, the EEOC does not have the authority to create statutes or issue non-procedural regulations under Title VII.

          PS - different websites had different opinions on it & what an employer can/cannot do & what an employer should/should not do...
          Last edited by Betty3; 05-04-2012, 12:47 PM. Reason: add PS
          Too often we underestimate the power of a touch, a smile, a kind word, a listening ear, an honest compliment, or the smallest act of caring, all of which have the potential to turn a life around. Leo Buscaglia

          Live in peace with animals. Animals bring love to our hearts and warmth to our souls.

          Comment


          • #6
            I read that with interest (because I do find the whole "can we/can't we" when it comes to criminal histories and employment law to be very interesting).

            So it would basically be a case of "Yes, I'd like to file this claim with the EEOC based upon something which isn't actually illegal at this point"?

            Comment


            • #7
              It'll be interesting to see how the inevitable litigation pans out, won't it?
              The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

              Comment


              • #8
                Yes, it will.
                Too often we underestimate the power of a touch, a smile, a kind word, a listening ear, an honest compliment, or the smallest act of caring, all of which have the potential to turn a life around. Leo Buscaglia

                Live in peace with animals. Animals bring love to our hearts and warmth to our souls.

                Comment


                • #9
                  What is your guy's views on this?

                  Me: I for one think it's good, but....there are still some places some people of some convictions should not work. John Wayne Gacy is not someone I'd want as an assistant coach in junior high school. But there are other areas where the conviction shouldn't be an issue. Case in point- Valero/Diamond Shamrock. I have sales experience, and far more than some of the idiots they hired. But they denied me because I have a record. At that time I was on probation, and they alleged that I'd be more prone to stealing from them since I had a record. Not thinking of the conviction, as to date I have never been convicted of any dishonesty. My record has nothing to do with any crimes of moral turpitude. And at that time I was a respected member of the county search & rescue. Now think about this for a minute. If I were to get hired and then steal from them, since I was on probation, is there anything in the gas station that would make it worth getting my probation revoked and netting me four years up state? Not only "no", but "hell no". and I have had that problem literally left and right. Being that I have private funding due to a serious injury I received, I'm lucky. No one would hire me because I have a physical impairment and that I have a record. just having a record somehow makes me a liar and dishonest and, you name it.

                  But also consider that in Oklahoma, they passed a law in March on just that. http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInf...9&session=1200
                  That bill prohibits anyone convicted of arson from being employed as either paid or volunteer firefighters. Well, I know that WILL show up in the background check. But is that bad? As I was saying about John Wayne Gacy, some people just aren't a good fit for some positions.

                  I hope this helps those in search of a job.
                  But that's my opinion.
                  I don't believe what I write, and neither should you. Information furnished to you is for debate purposes only, be sure to verify with your own research.
                  Keep in mind that the information provided may not be worth any more than either a politician's promise or what you paid for it (nothing).
                  I also may not have been either sane or sober when I wrote it down.
                  Don't worry, be happy.

                  http://www.rcfp.org/taping/index.html is a good resource!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Das ist in der Doktor!

                    Sounds like useless and toothless legislation to me.
                    Discrimination of that kind, like beauty, would be in the eye of the beholder, how would you go about PROVING that ones criminal past is THE REASON for not getting the job?
                    Sealing ones criminal record?
                    That will never happen.
                    You are told you've paid your debt to society, but all too soon you learn, those are just words and they hold no real meaning for you.
                    And for many,
                    only your death will provide for a sigh of relief.

                    .._______________
                    ~ Life has a way of teaching us the things that our parents couldn't or wouldn't,
                    sometimes with fatal consequences for not paying attention. ~ drr.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I would imagine the first few test cases would involve situations where on paper, everything between two applicants is absolutely equal - except for the criminal history of one applicant. I suspect at least initially, the burden of proof would actually be on the employer to show that the criminal history was NOT the reason why the person wasn't hired.


                      @Jack - did you read the bill? There are exceptions

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        My hunch is that this will go the way of the NLRB decision that all employers are required to post notices in the workplace of employees' rights to unionize. The courts found that the NLRB overstepped and that it's not their role to make new policy from laws that don't exist. Same goes for the EEOC I imagine.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Entirely possible.
                          The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            You might be right, Beth.
                            Too often we underestimate the power of a touch, a smile, a kind word, a listening ear, an honest compliment, or the smallest act of caring, all of which have the potential to turn a life around. Leo Buscaglia

                            Live in peace with animals. Animals bring love to our hearts and warmth to our souls.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I do think the EEOC overstepped here but I also disagree very much with essentially telling employers which risks they must take to avoid a lawsuit. As a business owner, it should be a business decision what level of risk one is comfortable accepting and what standards of conduct they expect from those they are putting on their payroll. Unlike race or gender, criminal record is based on conduct and does involve a degree of risk that inate characteristics just do not pose.

                              While yes, it is harder to gain employment if one has a record, I do think evidence of past criminal activity is a valid reason to move on to the next candidate, same as a negative past employment reference. If some employers decide to go to extremes and totally eliminate those with any sort of record, regardless of relevancy or time elapsed, it is their loss if they miss out on a really great employee who made a mistake long ago.

                              Proving relevancy is also a judgement call. Obviously a bank teller with a history of stealing is bad but what about a teller with a history of assaults? Should the employer have to overlook these and incur the risk that the employee will relapse and act out at a customer or coworker? Employers are ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don't. Either get sued by the candidate or the employee who is attacked. What about someone with a drug conviction working in a school? Do you want to risk the children's safety and hope they aren't using, dealing or under the influence while at work?

                              As for hiring someone on probation, I would be very leery. Someone on probabation has not yet proven that they won't be tempted again or have truly reformed. They just being offer the chance to demonstrate that they can or have done so. I wouldn't want to tempt them nor risk that they have not overcome whatever forces led them to make the choice to commit the crime in the place.
                              I post with the full knowledge and support of my employer, though the opinions rendered are my own and not necessarily representative of their position. In other words, I'm a free agent.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X