Can Employers Discriminate Against Felons?

[manifold]

Explain what rights a freedoms a business owner loses? Keep in mind I own two businesses and I live in Texas.

You lose the right to tell darkies that you don't hire no stink'n darkies. You're forced to lie and make up some other reason to conceal your racism.

If I didn't want to hire a black person I wouldn't and no one can force me to.

True.

But the fact remains that if you told a black applicant to beat it cuz you don't hire blacks, he'll sue your ass and win... and probably put you out of business.

 

[zzzz]

According to the article, this only happened 10 days ago. We have millions of qualified, decent, law abiding people looking for work right now. Who would hire a druggue or a thief, over someone who is not?

But what if the thief could do the job better and quicker than other people? I admit I am being simplistic here but isn't an employer suppose to hire the best qualified and best worker they can? As a shareholder do you want the HR department to hire lazy people over people who will work hard?

How do you know the ex-con you hire would do a better job? I co-own a gunshop and I wouldn't hire any convicted felon, period.

I was talking about working in a factory not a bank or a gun shop or other buisnesses that might be termed felon sensitive.

 

[Gadawg73]

I own 3 corporations and do employment background screening for my detective agency.
I hire and fire who I want to and advise my clients to do the same.
To avoid ALL discrimination suits when firing someone follow this pattern:
First time that person comes in late for work give them a written warning.
Next time they are one second late fire their ass.

 

[Luissa]

I am not saying anyone should have to hire them, but there is always the other side of the issue. In some cases the criminal might owe their victim restitution, and if they don't get a job, their victim doesn't get paid. The man who shot my brother, pays my brother $40 every month, which is probably taken out of his pay check, but that also proves some people are willing to hire felons.

 

[saveliberty]

I think it is my right as a business owner to protect my business, find the best hirees and consider the needs of my customers. Hiring a felon could run counter to those rights. Lonestar, you are the exception and not the rule when it comes to this subject.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Ah but freedom is your ability or desire to do what you want without infringing upon anothers freedom or the right to pursue happiness. When you go into buisness you volutarily give up some of your rights and freedoms, look at all the rules and regulations you must follow!

How would the freedom to choose who a person hires infringe on anyone elses freedom? Surely you're not suggesting you have a constitutional right to have a job? Explain what rights a freedoms a business owner loses? Keep in mind I own two businesses and I live in Texas.

You have to follow safety regs, enviromental regs, and other obligations from the federal to local level. You do not have the freedom to do as you please so you have volutaritly given up some freedom of choice to run a buisness.

I did not say that refusing to hire someone infringes on their freedoms. You have the freedom to choose who you want to hire and that should not change. I was talking about freedom generally. It was in response to you statement about freedom.

In other words there are no specific rights or freedoms I'm losing as a business owner.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You lose the right to tell darkies that you don't hire no stink'n darkies. You're forced to lie and make up some other reason to conceal your racism.

If I didn't want to hire a black person I wouldn't and no one can force me to.

True.

But the fact remains that if you told a black applicant to beat it cuz you don't hire blacks, he'll sue your ass and win... and probably put you out of business.

No he would file a complaint and then have to prove his claim before he would even have a remote chance of taking my business. Trust me, I've been accused of not hiring folks because they were either too fat, too ugly or the wrong color. I haven't lost a single case.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

But what if the thief could do the job better and quicker than other people? I admit I am being simplistic here but isn't an employer suppose to hire the best qualified and best worker they can? As a shareholder do you want the HR department to hire lazy people over people who will work hard?

How do you know the ex-con you hire would do a better job? I co-own a gunshop and I wouldn't hire any convicted felon, period.

I was talking about working in a factory not a bank or a gun shop or other buisnesses that might be termed felon sensitive.

Every job is sensitive to a degree, a thief for instance could just as easily steal from a factory as he could from a bank.

 

[saveliberty]

How would the freedom to choose who a person hires infringe on anyone elses freedom? Surely you're not suggesting you have a constitutional right to have a job? Explain what rights a freedoms a business owner loses? Keep in mind I own two businesses and I live in Texas.

You have to follow safety regs, enviromental regs, and other obligations from the federal to local level. You do not have the freedom to do as you please so you have volutaritly given up some freedom of choice to run a buisness.

I did not say that refusing to hire someone infringes on their freedoms. You have the freedom to choose who you want to hire and that should not change. I was talking about freedom generally. It was in response to you statement about freedom.

In other words there are no specific rights or freedoms I'm losing as a business owner.

How about this one?

Right of Association. First Amendment.

 

[Barb]

Doesn't it really depend? There a THOUSANDS of people who should never have seen the inside of a jail, much less a prison cell. Others that maybe should have, but had their reasons at the time, reasons that you may well sympathize with if you heard them out. And still others that were just fucked up kids, with the fucked up notion that they were untouchable, infallible, or indestructible because they were KIDS at the time.

Me? I was blond, blue eyed, and HAWT. It worked for me. The police? If they looked at me in any but a predatory way, it was as one of their own, and they called my father and ratted me out.

Think about all of it. There is bias. There is preference. There are many, many extenuating circumstances.

I could have been a felon many times over. I was cute, so it didn't happen. Is that fair?

 

[Valerie]

Pre-Employment Inquiries and Arrest & Conviction

There is no Federal law that clearly prohibits an employer from asking about arrest and conviction records. However, using such records as an absolute measure to prevent an individual from being hired could limit the employment opportunities of some protected groups and thus cannot be used in this way.

Since an arrest alone does not necessarily mean that an applicant has committed a crime the employer should not assume that the applicant committed the offense. Instead, the employer should allow him or her the opportunity to explain the circumstances of the arrest(s) and should make a reasonable effort to determine whether the explanation is reliable.

Even if the employer believes that the applicant did engage in the conduct for which he or she was arrested that information should prevent him or her from employment only to the extent that it is evident that the applicant cannot be trusted to perform the duties of the position when

* considering the nature of the job,
* the nature and seriousness of the offense,
* and the length of time since it occurred.

This is also true for a conviction.

Several state laws limit the use of arrest and conviction records by prospective employers. These range from laws and rules prohibiting the employer from asking the applicant any questions about arrest records to those restricting the employer's use of conviction data in making an employment decision.

...

In some states, while there is no restriction placed on the employer, there are protections provided to the applicant with regard to what information they are required to report.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) imposes a number of requirements on employers who wish to investigate applicants for employment through the use of consumer credit report or criminal records check. This law requires the employer to advise the applicant in writing that a background check will be conducted, obtain the applicant's written authorization to obtain the records, and notify the applicant that a poor credit history or conviction will not automatically result in disqualification from employment.

Certain other disclosures are required upon the employee's request and prior to taking any adverse action based on the reports obtained.

Pre-Employment Inquiries and Arrest & Conviction

>

Equal employment opportunity (EEO) laws prohibit specific types of employment discrimination. These laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, or status as an individual with a disability or protected veteran.

Two U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) agencies administer EEO laws:

* The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management's Civil Rights Center (CRC) - Oversees equal opportunity in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance from DOL, and assures equal opportunity for all applicants to and employees of DOL.
* The Employment Standards Administration's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) - Oversees EEO laws and regulations that apply to employers holding federal contracts and subcontracts.

In addition, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), an independent federal agency, promotes EEO for employees of most private employers, state and local governments, educational institutions, employment agencies, and labor organizations.

Compliance Assistance - By Topic - Equal Employment Opportunity Hiring

 

[zzzz]

How do you know the ex-con you hire would do a better job? I co-own a gunshop and I wouldn't hire any convicted felon, period.

I was talking about working in a factory not a bank or a gun shop or other buisnesses that might be termed felon sensitive.

Every job is sensitive to a degree, a thief for instance could just as easily steal from a factory as he could from a bank.

That is true but non-felons steal a lot more and more often because they are trusted more and never get caught.

 

[Barb]

How do you know the ex-con you hire would do a better job? I co-own a gunshop and I wouldn't hire any convicted felon, period.

I was talking about working in a factory not a bank or a gun shop or other buisnesses that might be termed felon sensitive.

Every job is sensitive to a degree, a thief for instance could just as easily steal from a factory as he could from a bank.

Meanwhile, a high level drug dealer, the banker, just for an instance, who HAS no record would have an impeccable credit score...little debt, bills paid on time, and would be the preferred candidate for a high level job. Crooked in more ways than one, but insulated. Smarter than the street level on ways to rip you off, and totally "respectable."

 

[Cecilie1200]

There is no Federal law that clearly prohibits an employer from asking about arrest and conviction records. However, using such records as an absolute measure to prevent an individual from being hired could limit the employment opportunities of some protected groups and thus cannot be used in this way.

Since an arrest alone does not necessarily mean that an applicant has committed a crime the employer should not assume that the applicant committed the offense. Instead, the employer should allow him or her the opportunity to explain the circumstances of the arrest(s) and should make a reasonable effort to determine whether the explanation is reliable.

Even if the employer believes that the applicant did engage in the conduct for which he or she was arrested that information should prevent him or her from employment only to the extent that it is evident that the applicant cannot be trusted to perform the duties of the position when

* considering the nature of the job,
* the nature and seriousness of the offense,
* and the length of time since it occurred.

This is also true for a conviction.

Hot Air EEOC: Employers can’t refuse to hire convicts

Just think of all those new lawsuits!!!!! The defense lawyers can now expand their businesses to file EEOC complaints for all their scumbag defendents! What a country!

I get so tired of the politics of victimhood, and talking about "discrimination" when addressing convicted felons is just silly. Discrimination, in this sense, is making value judgements based on criteria that have no relation to or bearing on the judgement being made, to borrow a phrase from Dr. King, judging on skin color rather than content of character (or on ethnicity, religion, etc.)

To now come up and say that it's discrimination to base your judgement on that self-same content of character is ludicrous. That's one of the major relevant items on which one SHOULD make an employment judgement. And I'm very sorry to any convicted felons out there who feel like a persecuted minority now because people think they're untrustworthy dirtballs, but committing felonies DOES indicate a lack of character.

If I'm turned down for a job because I'm a woman, that's something over which I have no control or choice. You had a choice about committing a crime, so you are NOT entitled to the same discrimination protection that I am.

 

[Gadawg73]

Arrest records should never be considered. They are not credible and hear say.
Convictions only.

 

[Barb]

I was talking about working in a factory not a bank or a gun shop or other buisnesses that might be termed felon sensitive.

Every job is sensitive to a degree, a thief for instance could just as easily steal from a factory as he could from a bank.

That is true but non-felons steal a lot more and more often because they are trusted more and never get caught.

There is no Federal law that clearly prohibits an employer from asking about arrest and conviction records. However, using such records as an absolute measure to prevent an individual from being hired could limit the employment opportunities of some protected groups and thus cannot be used in this way.

Since an arrest alone does not necessarily mean that an applicant has committed a crime the employer should not assume that the applicant committed the offense. Instead, the employer should allow him or her the opportunity to explain the circumstances of the arrest(s) and should make a reasonable effort to determine whether the explanation is reliable.

Even if the employer believes that the applicant did engage in the conduct for which he or she was arrested that information should prevent him or her from employment only to the extent that it is evident that the applicant cannot be trusted to perform the duties of the position when

* considering the nature of the job,
* the nature and seriousness of the offense,
* and the length of time since it occurred.

This is also true for a conviction.

Hot Air EEOC: Employers can’t refuse to hire convicts

Just think of all those new lawsuits!!!!! The defense lawyers can now expand their businesses to file EEOC complaints for all their scumbag defendents! What a country!

I get so tired of the politics of victimhood, and talking about "discrimination" when addressing convicted felons is just silly. Discrimination, in this sense, is making value judgements based on criteria that have no relation to or bearing on the judgement being made, to borrow a phrase from Dr. King, judging on skin color rather than content of character (or on ethnicity, religion, etc.)

To now come up and say that it's discrimination to base your judgement on that self-same content of character is ludicrous. That's one of the major relevant items on which one SHOULD make an employment judgement. And I'm very sorry to any convicted felons out there who feel like a persecuted minority now because people think they're untrustworthy dirtballs, but committing felonies DOES indicate a lack of character.

If I'm turned down for a job because I'm a woman, that's something over which I have no control or choice. You had a choice about committing a crime, so you are NOT entitled to the same discrimination protection that I am.

Oh bullshit. You think the Rockefeller drug laws were written for WHITE people, or that the war on drugs were enforced equally AGAINST white people? That's a self induced sleep all your own chica, and if you don't know you're full of shit then you're dumber than a box of rocks.
No offense to the rocks.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You have to follow safety regs, enviromental regs, and other obligations from the federal to local level. You do not have the freedom to do as you please so you have volutaritly given up some freedom of choice to run a buisness.

I did not say that refusing to hire someone infringes on their freedoms. You have the freedom to choose who you want to hire and that should not change. I was talking about freedom generally. It was in response to you statement about freedom.

In other words there are no specific rights or freedoms I'm losing as a business owner.

How about this one?

Right of Association. First Amendment.

I don't lose any one of those rights as a business owner.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I was talking about working in a factory not a bank or a gun shop or other buisnesses that might be termed felon sensitive.

Every job is sensitive to a degree, a thief for instance could just as easily steal from a factory as he could from a bank.

That is true but non-felons steal a lot more and more often because they are trusted more and never get caught.

I made no distinction between a felon and a non-felon.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I was talking about working in a factory not a bank or a gun shop or other buisnesses that might be termed felon sensitive.

Every job is sensitive to a degree, a thief for instance could just as easily steal from a factory as he could from a bank.

Meanwhile, a high level drug dealer, the banker, just for an instance, who HAS no record would have an impeccable credit score...little debt, bills paid on time, and would be the preferred candidate for a high level job. Crooked in more ways than one, but insulated. Smarter than the street level on ways to rip you off, and totally "respectable."

That could happen in a movie.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Every job is sensitive to a degree, a thief for instance could just as easily steal from a factory as he could from a bank.

That is true but non-felons steal a lot more and more often because they are trusted more and never get caught.

Hot Air EEOC: Employers can’t refuse to hire convicts

Just think of all those new lawsuits!!!!! The defense lawyers can now expand their businesses to file EEOC complaints for all their scumbag defendents! What a country!

I get so tired of the politics of victimhood, and talking about "discrimination" when addressing convicted felons is just silly. Discrimination, in this sense, is making value judgements based on criteria that have no relation to or bearing on the judgement being made, to borrow a phrase from Dr. King, judging on skin color rather than content of character (or on ethnicity, religion, etc.)

To now come up and say that it's discrimination to base your judgement on that self-same content of character is ludicrous. That's one of the major relevant items on which one SHOULD make an employment judgement. And I'm very sorry to any convicted felons out there who feel like a persecuted minority now because people think they're untrustworthy dirtballs, but committing felonies DOES indicate a lack of character.

If I'm turned down for a job because I'm a woman, that's something over which I have no control or choice. You had a choice about committing a crime, so you are NOT entitled to the same discrimination protection that I am.

Oh bullshit. You think the Rockefeller drug laws were written for WHITE people, or that the war on drugs were enforced equally AGAINST white people? That's a self induced sleep all your own chica, and if you don't know you're full of shit then you're dumber than a box of rocks.
No offense to the rocks.

So you're saying those aforementioned policies are directed primarily at blacks? if so, then there are a ton of rocks out there smarter than you.