Can Employers Discriminate Against Felons?

[saveliberty]

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.

Isn't the government telling me who I have to associate with? Where is the freedom in that?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

How about this one?

Right of Association. First Amendment.

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

Isn't the government telling me who I have to associate with? Where is the freedom in that?

How is the government telling you who you have to associate with?

 

[Misty]

1. If the employee appears to be a good worker, an employer won't care about race or any of that.

2. If the convict appears to be unsuited for the job, the employer won't hire them.

3. If the convict is a child molester, the employer will secretly have them killed.

 

[Barb]

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.

That is the distinction between a felon and a non felon. Sheesh, a movie? You think this is not a fact of real life? Honest too God? Really?
Our own government ran drugs to support an illegal war, and that documented instance wasn't the first time. You are not this stupid. Partisan maybe, although both sides have been party to it, but no WAY are you this clueless. Way past my bed time. But still, you should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Madeline]

WTF did it become the duty of the EEOC to expand the law? Felons can be a "protected group" only if the Congress or the Gang of Nine says so. Same thing with consumer credit reports...if an employer wants to use them in a hiring search, he may (unless a state law precludes him from doing so...but EEOC ain't there to enforce state laws).

And if the EEOC Announcement is meant to be read as "some felons are protected, if they qualify as under another heading", then this is announcement is even more goofy. The EEOC itself is discriminating against "non-special felons".

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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.

That is the distinction between a felon and a non felon. Sheesh, a movie? You think this is not a fact of real life? Honest too God? Really?
Our own government ran drugs to support an illegal war, and that documented instance wasn't the first time. You are not this stupid. Partisan maybe, although both sides have been party to it, but no WAY are you this clueless. Way past my bed time. But still, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Why not introduce facts instead of some made up scenario?

Yes I believe all children should be going to bed right about now.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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 could someone who's likely to steal from you POSSIBLY be the best-qualified worker? I don't care if someone earned business degree from the best economics college in the world. If he was convicted of embezzling, I'm not hiring him as an accountant. (Just an example.)

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Yes, because factories NEVER experience employee theft or other criminal activities.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Hey, if your racial or ethnic group insists on committing a set of crimes more often than other people, don't whine to me about how they end up on the wrong end of the laws governing that crime more often. And sure as HELL don't whine to me that we need to change the laws to "not discriminate".

The war on drugs is enforced on whomever is engaging in illegal drug activity (quite often people of Latino/South American extraction) and only dumb, racist trash like you thinks THAT is of any importance in the equation. Drugs don't become any less harmful to society at large just because it's a "persecuted minority" selling them, "chica".

 

[Charles_Main]

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!

Of course they can. You can not force anyone to employee and Felon.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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!

The federal government does it why can't they?
True story. that happen today. The company I work for is doing the plumbing remodel of the federal courthouse in the U.S. Marshal office. Me and the guy who was helping me today went to sign in. I have been there so I was OK he was new so they had to do a background check on him. FAILED they would not allow him entry because he had a prior Felony charge back in 1997. So he could not work.

 

[Middleman]

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!

Employers can demand a credit check and discriminate because of a bad report. So why not a criminal background?

 

[chanel]

I don't think they can anymore Middleman.

 

[Middleman]

I don't think they can anymore Middleman.

I was listening to Dave Ramsey the other day and he was talking about that. He said that employers have viable reasons for not hiring someone who is irresponsible to debt and money. He said that people like that are more likely to steal from their employers, for one thing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't think they can anymore Middleman.

I was listening to Dave Ramsey the other day and he was talking about that. He said that employers have viable reasons for not hiring someone who is irresponsible to debt and money. He said that people like that are more likely to steal from their employers, for one thing.

I can see that. And even if they aren't actively dishonest - and therefore likely to steal - they're clearly irresponsible, and thus the argument could be made that they wouldn't take their responsibilities to their job seriously.

On the other hand, if they simply went through a bad period that put them in debt, they might be likely to work hard in order to get out of it.