On April 25th, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued new “enforcement guidance on the consideration of arrest and conviction records in employment decisions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”
This is the first guidance on this topic issued by the EEOC in more than 20 years. It reflects the EEOC’s recent litigation trend of trying to limit employers’ use of criminal records in making employment decisions.
12. State/Local Restrictions on Employers
(Ban the Box laws)
Massachusetts: Employers may not inquire about
criminal records on the initial written application.
Minnesota, Connecticut & New Mexico: Public
employers may not inquire about criminal records
on the initial written application.
Hawaii: Employer may inquire only after an offer
of employment is made
More than 2 dozen cities have passed similar
ordinances including Philadelphia, Baltimore, Memphis, and San Francisco
13. Title VII of Title VII of the of 1964
the Civil Rights Act
Civil Rights Act of 1964
15. EEOC
Federal law enforcement
agency
Not rulemaking agency
2,500+ employees
$379 M budget
(down $7.3 M from 2011)
16. EEOC
5 commissioners
Currently 2 Democrats
and 2 Republicans
Comm. Ishimaru left
4/30/2012 to join CFPB
Gridlock expected until after the
November elections
17. Other Title VII Enforcement
State fair employment practices agencies
can also enforce Title VII
Individuals can also file individual lawsuits
Courthouse
18. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Disparate Treatment - intentional
discrimination against someone in a protected
class where there is not a bona fide occupational
qualification.
19. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
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
20. 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)
21. 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 nonconviction cases, 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 and Policy Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest Records in Employment Decisions under Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964
22. EEOC Activity
99,947 charges filed in 2011 (20% increase
since 2005)
E-RACE initiative looks for systemic
discrimination (disparate impact claims)
July 26, 2011 - hearings on the use of criminal
records in employment (“a new protected
class”)
23. 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.
28. 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.
6 states have “job-relatedness” requirements
for the consideration of criminal records
49. 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:
50. 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:
51. The employer must provide information
prior to making an adverse decision.
52. 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.
55. 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)
No: Not eligible for hire (N)
SHOULD BE LIMITED IN APPLICATION
56. Adjudication Relevance Matrix
OFFENSE 0 - 3 YEARS 3 - 7 YEARS 7 YEARS +
(0 - 36 MONTHS) (37 - 84 MONTHS) (85 + MONTHS)
Alcohol Consumption/Possession Y Y Y
Alcohol Sale to Minor C C Y
Arson N N N
Assault/Battery/Domestic Violence (FELONY) N N C
Assault/Battery/Domestic Violence (MISD) C C Y
Auto Theft N N C
Burglary/Breaking and Entering/Burglar's Tools N N C
Child Abuse/Molestation N N N
Child Neglect/Child Endangerment (FELONY) N N N
Child Neglect/Child Endangerment (MISD) N C Y
Child Support Y Y Y
Computer Crimes C C C
Contributing to Delinquency Minor C C C
Credit Card Abuse/Fraud/Skimming N N N
Criminal Contempt C Y Y
Criminal Mischief/Damage to Property/Vandalism N Y Y
Disorderly Conduct C Y Y
Drug Possession/Drug Abuse/Poss. of Drug Paraphernalia (MISD) N C Y
Drug Sale/Distribution/Manufacturing/Felony Possession N N C
Embezzlement N N N
Evading Arrest/Failure to Identify as Fugitive/Fugitive C C Y
Failure to File Tax Return C Y Y
False Report C Y Y
OK, maybe HR credibility isn’t the same as “street cred,” but, hey, I am delivering two sessions at HRSouthwest this year.I’m a 20-year HR veteran and an SPHR. I’m also 2011 President-Elect for the Fort Worth Human Resource Management Association. Additionally, I am currently a director for the Texas Association of Licensed Investigators.In the last two years, I’ve delivered over 40 presentations to SHRM chapters and conferences 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 (me?) 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 for this webinar 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!
As we review the issues surrounding employers’ use of criminal records, it is important to keep in mind why we care about applicants’ criminal histories. Employers run criminal background checks to protect the public, their employees, their assets, and their reputations. Many also run background checks to ensure legal and regulatory compliance. 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.
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.
Employees of NASA contractors working at Jet Propulsion Laboratories sued NASA when the agency changed the background check requirements for contractors to meet those of regular employees. The contractors claimed that NASA’s inquiry into their past activities, including questions about their prior illegal drug use, violated their privacy. The US Supreme Court ruled in favor of NASA and recognized the need for background checks, even those asking very invasive questions, citing the widespread use of background checks by private employers.
This is a bad idea that is also being promoted by the EEOC. We talk more about it later.
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.
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.
Normally, the EEOC has five commissioners and until the end of April 2012, there were three Democrats (who leaned more pro-labor) and two Republicans (who leaned more pro-employer). Commissioner Stuart Ishimaru left the Commission to head the CFPB’s Office of Minority and Women Inclusion (OMWI), leaving the Commission equally split between Republicans and Democrats. Many have speculated that this is why the Commission released the new guidance when it did on April 25th. Had it been one week later, the Commission would likely have been unable to approve the guidance thanks to gridlock.
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.