EEOC Shock Troops...

[seer]

To be specific, the feds are saying that minorities disproportionately have more criminal records, and if you are haphazard in how you screen, you can end up having a disparate impact on minorities when screening.

So if you across the board do not hire those with a felony, any felony, what law has been broken?

[CivilDiscourse]

So if you across the board do not hire those with a felony, any felony, what law has been broken?

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Writes Act. If disparate impact can be shown.
https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-...ights-act-1964

(k) Burden of proof in disparate impact cases

(1) (A) An unlawful employment practice based on disparate impact is established under this subchapter only if-

(i) a complaining party demonstrates that a respondent uses a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and the respondent fails to demonstrate that the challenged practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity; or

(ii) the complaining party makes the demonstration described in subparagraph (C) with respect to an alternative employment practice and the respondent refuses to adopt such alternative employment practice.

(B) (i) With respect to demonstrating that a particular employment practice causes a disparate impact as described in subparagraph (A)(i), the complaining party shall demonstrate that each particular challenged employment practice causes a disparate impact, except that if the complaining party can demonstrate to the court that the elements of a respondent's decision making process are not capable of separation for analysis, the decision making process may be analyzed as one employment practice.

(ii) If the respondent demonstrates that a specific employment practice does not cause the disparate impact, the respondent shall not be required to demonstrate that such practice is required by business necessity.

(C) The demonstration referred to by subparagraph (A)(ii) shall be in accordance with the law as it existed on June 4, 1989, with respect to the concept of "alternative employment practice".

(2) A demonstration that an employment practice is required by business necessity may not be used as a defense against a claim of intentional discrimination under this subchapter.

(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, a rule barring the employment of an individual who currently and knowingly uses or possesses a controlled substance, as defined in schedules I and II of section 102(6) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(6)), other than the use or possession of a drug taken under the supervision of a licensed health care professional, or any other use or possession authorized by the Controlled Substances Act [21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.] or any other provision of Federal law, shall be considered an unlawful employment practice under this subchapter only if such rule is adopted or applied with an intent to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

[oxmixmudd]

Again, not quite. They would be saying they are more likely to have criminal records.MAY ACLU assertsoxmixmudd

The sentence directed to me;

not exactly. I'm actually talking about the composed impact of two elements. The first being the disparity in how the laws are enforced, which you mention,  but the second being that in our nation, the breeding grounds for crime are also divided along racial lines. And in fact, I tend to think they feed into each other. But the bottom line is that I tend to think no matter how careful one was screening based on criminal records, a disparity would be seen, because of these larger inequities that are beyond the capacity of a buisiness to correct. 

and in fact, that does highlight how these systemic biases become self reinforcing. In this case because of these inequities, a lorger percentage of black people have criminal records, which means more black people are denied employment, which tends to reinforce a statistical disparity in earning power, which perpetuates a greater percentage of poverty, which keeps people in more crime prone areas, which breeds more criminals.

[seer]

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Writes Act. If disparate impact can be shown.

So like I said earlier, speeding tickets have a large disparate impact on males, on a sex. Now what?

[CivilDiscourse]

The sentence directed to me;

not exactly. I'm actually talking about the composed impact of two elements. The first being the disparity in how the laws are enforced, which you mention, but the second being that in our nation, the breeding grounds for crime are also divided along racial lines. And in fact, I tend to think they feed into each other. But the bottom line is that I tend to think no matter how careful one was screening based on criminal records, a disparity would be seen, because of these larger inequities that are beyond the capacity of a buisiness to correct.

and in fact, that does highlight how these systemic biases become self reinforcing. In this case because of these inequities, a lorger percentage of black people have criminal records, which means more black people are denied employment, which tends to reinforce a statistical disparity in earning power, which perpetuates a greater percentage of poverty, which keeps people in more crime prone areas, which breeds more criminals.

Then, if you are screening on that you would likely be discriminating on sex. (especially if someone speeding doesn't pertain directly to the performance of their job.)

[CivilDiscourse]

The sentence directed to me;

not exactly. I'm actually talking about the composed impact of two elements. The first being the disparity in how the laws are enforced, which you mention, but the second being that in our nation, the breeding grounds for crime are also divided along racial lines. And in fact, I tend to think they feed into each other. But the bottom line is that I tend to think no matter how careful one was screening based on criminal records, a disparity would be seen, because of these larger inequities that are beyond the capacity of a buisiness to correct.

and in fact, that does highlight how these systemic biases become self reinforcing. In this case because of these inequities, a lorger percentage of black people have criminal records, which means more black people are denied employment, which tends to reinforce a statistical disparity in earning power, which perpetuates a greater percentage of poverty, which keeps people in more crime prone areas, which breeds more criminals.

Now I go back to the same question I've asked you twice now, and haven't gotten an answer for.

If someone was convicted of taking money out of a cash drawer, would you hire them for a job that requires them to be responsible for a cash drawer, even if you feel that said person was a member of a group that was systematically charged more frequently for taking money out of a cash drawer?

[Sparko]

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Writes Act. If disparate impact can be shown.
https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-...ights-act-1964

(k) Burden of proof in disparate impact cases

(1) (A) An unlawful employment practice based on disparate impact is established under this subchapter only if-

(i) a complaining party demonstrates that a respondent uses a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and the respondent fails to demonstrate that the challenged practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity; or

(ii) the complaining party makes the demonstration described in subparagraph (C) with respect to an alternative employment practice and the respondent refuses to adopt such alternative employment practice.

(B) (i) With respect to demonstrating that a particular employment practice causes a disparate impact as described in subparagraph (A)(i), the complaining party shall demonstrate that each particular challenged employment practice causes a disparate impact, except that if the complaining party can demonstrate to the court that the elements of a respondent's decision making process are not capable of separation for analysis, the decision making process may be analyzed as one employment practice.

(ii) If the respondent demonstrates that a specific employment practice does not cause the disparate impact, the respondent shall not be required to demonstrate that such practice is required by business necessity.

(C) The demonstration referred to by subparagraph (A)(ii) shall be in accordance with the law as it existed on June 4, 1989, with respect to the concept of "alternative employment practice".

(2) A demonstration that an employment practice is required by business necessity may not be used as a defense against a claim of intentional discrimination under this subchapter.

(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, a rule barring the employment of an individual who currently and knowingly uses or possesses a controlled substance, as defined in schedules I and II of section 102(6) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(6)), other than the use or possession of a drug taken under the supervision of a licensed health care professional, or any other use or possession authorized by the Controlled Substances Act [21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.] or any other provision of Federal law, shall be considered an unlawful employment practice under this subchapter only if such rule is adopted or applied with an intent to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Not hiring criminals would fall under "consistent with business necessity"

[oxmixmudd]

Then, if you are screening on that you would likely be discriminating on sex. (especially if someone speeding doesn't pertain directly to the performance of their job.)

I'm thinking you still don't quite understand what my point is.

Consider this more detailed example:


1) the employer has sufficiently detailed information to screen by type of crime.

2) the employer only cares about theft convictions.

3) theft convictions are 2% in the white population, 4% in the black population (2x higher).

4) the employer hires roughly 25% of qualified applicants.

Consider then, in a population that is 15% black 8500 white applicants and 1500 black applicants.

The employer will then reject 170 white applicants on the basis of convictions, and 60 black applicants. And will then go on to hire 25% of those that are qualified based on a background screening. 

When you run the resulting numbers, you still see that 4% of black applicants vs 2% of white applicants are rejected over criminal history, even though the same 25% of qualified applicants are hired fairly, evenly across the applicant population. That rejection disparity is being called discrimination by race.

But there isnt anything the employer can do to stop that disparity, because the criminal record disparity is simply built in. And the employer has no inherent racial bias in its hiring policies and practices. If out society had no systemic bias creating the criminal record disparity, there would be no discrepancy in its criminal record rejection rate.


Now, back to your comment: could you explain what in your thought process makes you believe my assumptions lead to "discrimination based on sex"?
 

[CivilDiscourse]

Not hiring criminals would fall under "consistent with business necessity"

I would argue that this is only true if the crime actually has a rational impact on the job being hired for.

[Mountain Man]

Not hiring criminals would fall under "consistent with business necessity"

Seems to me the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is trying really hard to make this a race issue when it has nothing to do with race. Committing a crime is the action of an individual, and if Sheetz can show they are applying their standards fairly and consistently regardless of race, then they should easily win this suit.

[CivilDiscourse]

I'm thinking you still don't quite understand what my point is.

Consider this more detailed example:


1) the employer has sufficiently detailed information to screen by type of crime.

2) the employer only cares about theft convictions.

3) theft convictions are 2% in the white population, 4% in the black population (2x higher).

4) the employer hires roughly 25% of qualified applicants.

Consider then, in a population that is 15% black 8500 white applicants and 1500 black applicants.

The employer will then reject 170 white applicants on the basis of convictions, and 60 black applicants. And will then go on to hire 25% of those that are qualified based on a background screening.Â

When you run the resulting numbers, you still see that 4% of black applicants vs 2% of white applicants are rejected over criminal history, even though the same 25% of qualified applicants are hired fairly, evenly across the applicant population. That rejection disparity is being called discrimination by race.

But there isnt anything the employer can do to stop that disparity, because the criminal record disparity is simply built in. And the employer has no inherent racial bias in its hiring policies and practices. If out society had no systemic bias creating the criminal record disparity, there would be no discrepancy in its criminal record rejection rate.


Now, back to your comment: could you explain what in your thought process makes you believe my assumptions lead to "discrimination based on sex"?
Â

Is the crime of theft directly impactful on the job the employer is hiring for?

[Sparko]

I would argue that this is only true if the crime actually has a rational impact on the job being hired for.

Generally speaking, convicted criminals are not trustworthy individuals to put in charge of handling cash. Regardless of the crime in most cases.

[Stoic]

So like I said earlier, speeding tickets have a large disparate impact on males, on a sex. Now what?

Men aren't being hired because of speeding tickets?

[CivilDiscourse]

Generally speaking, convicted criminals are not trustworthy individuals to put in charge of handling cash. Regardless of the crime in most cases.

Involuntary Manslaughter due to glancing at a phone while driving?
Mom/Dad convicted of accidentally leaving a kid in a hot car?

[Sparko]

Involuntary Manslaughter due to glancing at a phone while driving?
Mom/Dad convicted of accidentally leaving a kid in a hot car?

I said generally speaking. For example, a murderer or a drug dealer or user, gang member, etc might not be a convicted thief, but their moral standards are such that they would likely have no problem stealing cash if the opportunity presented itself.