Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
New rules set on background checks for job seekers. Too_Many_Tools can get a job now.
14 views
Skip to first unread message
Samantha Power
Apr 27, 2012, 5:08:30 AM4/27/12
to
http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/25/11394190-new-
rules-set-on-background-checks-for-job-
seekers?lite&google_editors_picks=true
Updated at 7 p.m. ET: Federal regulators Wednesday approved new
rules that could make it easier to find work for convicted
criminals and others who have gotten into legal trouble.
By a 4-1 vote, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
approved the rules for employers who use criminal background
checks, calling for careful consideration of how and when such
reviews can be used in pre-employment screenings and in the
workplace because of their potential to be biased against
certain groups, such as racial minorities.
“The new guidance clarifies and updates the EEOC’s longstanding
policy concerning the use of arrest and conviction records in
employment, which will assist job seekers, employees, employers,
and many other agency stakeholders,” said EEOC Chair Jacqueline
Berrien.
The changes are seen as a boon for workers who have been unable
to land jobs or have lost jobs because of their criminal
histories.
“This is a major change for the good in how employers review
prospective employees,” said Samuel Miller, a labor attorney who
has litigated criminal background suits on behalf of employees.
“It creates presumption that consideration of criminal history
is illegal,” he explained. “And it is backed up by thorough
documentation of racial disparities. So it should be given much
more credence by employers and judges.”
Earlier this year Pepsico’s Pepsi Beverages unit settled charges
of hiring discrimination related to its criminal background
check policies.
The company was using arrest records and convictions to deny job
applicants positions, but the EEOC suit charged the practice
impacted minority employees disproportionately and as a result
was illegal under the nation’s labor laws.
The new 55-page document, intended to prevent racial and ethnic
discrimination, calls on employers to use criminal background
checks only when they can show they are job-related and
necessary for the business. For example, the guidelines say
employers should consider the "nature of the crime, the time
elapsed and the nature of the job."
The guidelines also caution that "arrests are not proof of
criminal conduct" and may not be sufficient to exclude a
candidate.
The EEOC acted in part because blacks and Hispanics are far
more likely to get caught up in the legal system. Given current
incarceration rates, about one in 17 white men are likely to
serve time in prison during their lifetimes, compared with one
in three African-American men, the agency said.
Employer advocates were pleased the EEOC did not entirely bar
the use of criminal background checks.
“The new guidance may require employers to tweak existing
policies, but is largely a collective restatement of the EEOC's
longstanding guidance documents on employer use of criminal
background checks,” said Katharine Parker, an employment
attorney for Proskauer.
The EEOC does not have the authority to ban “all uses of arrest
or conviction records or other screening devices,” said EEOC
spokeswoman Christine Nazer. “The EEOC simply seeks to ensure
that their use are undertaken carefully to ensure that
employment opportunities are not denied inappropriately.”
To that end, she added, the new guidance from the EEOC:
•Focuses on criminal record screening and employment
discrimination based on race and national origin.
•Discusses the differences between the treatment of arrest and
conviction records.
•Reviews the disparate treatment and disparate impact of such
reviews.
Criminal background checks have become increasingly popular in
the last few years partly because technology has made it easier
to dig up dirt and partly because hiring managers want any tools
to help them weed through the many applicants, given the tight
labor market.
Once upon a time, employers only used such background reviews
for workers who were in sensitive positions where they handled
money or worked with children. Today, their use has become
widespread no matter what the gig. About 73 percent of employers
use criminal background checks on all employees, according to
the most recent data from the Society of Human Resource
Management.
The update to the rules has been a long time coming for employee
advocates.
“The last guidance was written before anyone even knew what the
Internet was, and a criminal background check was rarely used
because it required so much personal attention to detail,” said
Nancy Zirkin, executive vice president of The Leadership
Conference on Civil and Human Rights. “This update reflects the
reality of a 21st century workplace, where background checks are
widely performed and applicants are thoughtlessly denied en
masse.”
But companies view such screenings as necessary to keep the
workplace safe, fight against theft and also to protect against
negligent hiring suits, said Angela Bosworth, vice president of
compliance and general counsel for EmployeeScreenIQ, a third-
party employee screening firm.
“Right now, employers are trying to build up their workforces as
the economy turns around and they’re able to hire again, but
we’re concerned this will create a barrier,” she explained.
“It’s going to muddy the waters on what employers can and can’t
do.”
rules-set-on-background-checks-for-job-
seekers?lite&google_editors_picks=true
Updated at 7 p.m. ET: Federal regulators Wednesday approved new
rules that could make it easier to find work for convicted
criminals and others who have gotten into legal trouble.
By a 4-1 vote, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
approved the rules for employers who use criminal background
checks, calling for careful consideration of how and when such
reviews can be used in pre-employment screenings and in the
workplace because of their potential to be biased against
certain groups, such as racial minorities.
“The new guidance clarifies and updates the EEOC’s longstanding
policy concerning the use of arrest and conviction records in
employment, which will assist job seekers, employees, employers,
and many other agency stakeholders,” said EEOC Chair Jacqueline
Berrien.
The changes are seen as a boon for workers who have been unable
to land jobs or have lost jobs because of their criminal
histories.
“This is a major change for the good in how employers review
prospective employees,” said Samuel Miller, a labor attorney who
has litigated criminal background suits on behalf of employees.
“It creates presumption that consideration of criminal history
is illegal,” he explained. “And it is backed up by thorough
documentation of racial disparities. So it should be given much
more credence by employers and judges.”
Earlier this year Pepsico’s Pepsi Beverages unit settled charges
of hiring discrimination related to its criminal background
check policies.
The company was using arrest records and convictions to deny job
applicants positions, but the EEOC suit charged the practice
impacted minority employees disproportionately and as a result
was illegal under the nation’s labor laws.
The new 55-page document, intended to prevent racial and ethnic
discrimination, calls on employers to use criminal background
checks only when they can show they are job-related and
necessary for the business. For example, the guidelines say
employers should consider the "nature of the crime, the time
elapsed and the nature of the job."
The guidelines also caution that "arrests are not proof of
criminal conduct" and may not be sufficient to exclude a
candidate.
The EEOC acted in part because blacks and Hispanics are far
more likely to get caught up in the legal system. Given current
incarceration rates, about one in 17 white men are likely to
serve time in prison during their lifetimes, compared with one
in three African-American men, the agency said.
Employer advocates were pleased the EEOC did not entirely bar
the use of criminal background checks.
“The new guidance may require employers to tweak existing
policies, but is largely a collective restatement of the EEOC's
longstanding guidance documents on employer use of criminal
background checks,” said Katharine Parker, an employment
attorney for Proskauer.
The EEOC does not have the authority to ban “all uses of arrest
or conviction records or other screening devices,” said EEOC
spokeswoman Christine Nazer. “The EEOC simply seeks to ensure
that their use are undertaken carefully to ensure that
employment opportunities are not denied inappropriately.”
To that end, she added, the new guidance from the EEOC:
•Focuses on criminal record screening and employment
discrimination based on race and national origin.
•Discusses the differences between the treatment of arrest and
conviction records.
•Reviews the disparate treatment and disparate impact of such
reviews.
Criminal background checks have become increasingly popular in
the last few years partly because technology has made it easier
to dig up dirt and partly because hiring managers want any tools
to help them weed through the many applicants, given the tight
labor market.
Once upon a time, employers only used such background reviews
for workers who were in sensitive positions where they handled
money or worked with children. Today, their use has become
widespread no matter what the gig. About 73 percent of employers
use criminal background checks on all employees, according to
the most recent data from the Society of Human Resource
Management.
The update to the rules has been a long time coming for employee
advocates.
“The last guidance was written before anyone even knew what the
Internet was, and a criminal background check was rarely used
because it required so much personal attention to detail,” said
Nancy Zirkin, executive vice president of The Leadership
Conference on Civil and Human Rights. “This update reflects the
reality of a 21st century workplace, where background checks are
widely performed and applicants are thoughtlessly denied en
masse.”
But companies view such screenings as necessary to keep the
workplace safe, fight against theft and also to protect against
negligent hiring suits, said Angela Bosworth, vice president of
compliance and general counsel for EmployeeScreenIQ, a third-
party employee screening firm.
“Right now, employers are trying to build up their workforces as
the economy turns around and they’re able to hire again, but
we’re concerned this will create a barrier,” she explained.
“It’s going to muddy the waters on what employers can and can’t
do.”
Samantha Power
Apr 27, 2012, 5:08:34 AM4/27/12
to
Samantha Power
Apr 27, 2012, 5:08:30 AM4/27/12
to
Samantha Power
Apr 26, 2012, 4:27:32 PM4/26/12
to
Gunner Asch
Apr 28, 2012, 6:01:04 AM4/28/12
to
On 27 Apr 2012 09:08:30 -0000, "Samantha Power" <les...@whitehouse.gov>
wrote:
>
>The company was using arrest records and convictions to deny job
>applicants positions, but the EEOC suit charged the practice
>impacted minority employees disproportionately and as a result
>was illegal under the nation’s labor laws.
Perhaps those minorities shouldnt commit so damned many crimes?
wrote:
>
>The company was using arrest records and convictions to deny job
>applicants positions, but the EEOC suit charged the practice
>impacted minority employees disproportionately and as a result
>was illegal under the nation’s labor laws.
0 new messages