Little-Acorn
Gold Member
Looks like the Federal government (Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, or EEOC) tried to sue a company for using criminal background checks when hiring new employees.
The EEOC tried to tell the judge that criminal background checks discriminated unfairly against blacks, since blacks committed more crimes than whites.
Yes, really.
The judge threw the case out, saying the EEOC had completely failed to prove ANY racial discrimination.
And he ripped to shreds a report the EEOC tried to give him. Check out what he said in the last paragraph quoted here.
It's nice to find a ray of sunshine and sanity amidst all the BS the race-baiting industry keeps slinging around.
------------------------------------------------
Jason Riley: Jobless Blacks Should Cheer Background Checks - WSJ.com
Jason Riley: Jobless Blacks Should Cheer Background Checks
Research suggests that employers who use them are less likely to racially discriminate.
by JASON L. RILEY
August 22, 2013, 7:14 p.m. ET
The Obama administration took one on the chin earlier this month when a federal court ruled that companies may use criminal-background checks in hiring without being guilty of racial discrimination. Employers are thrilled about the decision, obviously. Less obvious is that the black unemployed, whose numbers have swelled under President Obama, also have reason to cheer.
The case dates to 2009, when the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Freeman Co., an event management firm. The EEOC alleged that the company's criminal-background checks for job applicants discriminated against blacks, who in general are more likely than other groups to have criminal histories.
Judge Roger Titus of the U.S. District Court in Maryland disagreed. In his Aug. 9 ruling, he said that checking a person's criminal history is "a legitimate component of a reasonable hiring process." Employers "have a clear incentive to avoid hiring employees who have a proven tendency to defraud or steal from their employers, engage in workplace violence, or who otherwise appear to be untrustworthy and unreliable."
The meat of the ruling, however, is the court's blistering takedown of the government's "expert" report, authored by an outside statistician who attempted to establish that Freeman's criminal-background checks disproportionately harmed black job-seekers. Judge Titus described the report as "an egregious example of scientific dishonesty," its analysis "laughable," "skewed" and full of "cherry-picked data." He concluded that the "mind-boggling-number of errors" rendered the EEOC's "disparate impact conclusions worthless." There are "simply no facts here to support a theory of disparate impact resulting from any identified, specific practice."
The EEOC tried to tell the judge that criminal background checks discriminated unfairly against blacks, since blacks committed more crimes than whites.
Yes, really.
The judge threw the case out, saying the EEOC had completely failed to prove ANY racial discrimination.
And he ripped to shreds a report the EEOC tried to give him. Check out what he said in the last paragraph quoted here.
It's nice to find a ray of sunshine and sanity amidst all the BS the race-baiting industry keeps slinging around.
------------------------------------------------
Jason Riley: Jobless Blacks Should Cheer Background Checks - WSJ.com
Jason Riley: Jobless Blacks Should Cheer Background Checks
Research suggests that employers who use them are less likely to racially discriminate.
by JASON L. RILEY
August 22, 2013, 7:14 p.m. ET
The Obama administration took one on the chin earlier this month when a federal court ruled that companies may use criminal-background checks in hiring without being guilty of racial discrimination. Employers are thrilled about the decision, obviously. Less obvious is that the black unemployed, whose numbers have swelled under President Obama, also have reason to cheer.
The case dates to 2009, when the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Freeman Co., an event management firm. The EEOC alleged that the company's criminal-background checks for job applicants discriminated against blacks, who in general are more likely than other groups to have criminal histories.
Judge Roger Titus of the U.S. District Court in Maryland disagreed. In his Aug. 9 ruling, he said that checking a person's criminal history is "a legitimate component of a reasonable hiring process." Employers "have a clear incentive to avoid hiring employees who have a proven tendency to defraud or steal from their employers, engage in workplace violence, or who otherwise appear to be untrustworthy and unreliable."
The meat of the ruling, however, is the court's blistering takedown of the government's "expert" report, authored by an outside statistician who attempted to establish that Freeman's criminal-background checks disproportionately harmed black job-seekers. Judge Titus described the report as "an egregious example of scientific dishonesty," its analysis "laughable," "skewed" and full of "cherry-picked data." He concluded that the "mind-boggling-number of errors" rendered the EEOC's "disparate impact conclusions worthless." There are "simply no facts here to support a theory of disparate impact resulting from any identified, specific practice."