Discriminating against criminals is now illegal

[The Rabbi]

We've lost our minds at this point. A company is screening potential employees for criminal records because people with criminal records represent a liability. And the Obama Administration is now suing because, ta da, most of the people getting screened out are blacks.
EEOC sues over criminal background checks at Dollar General | Nashville City Paper

 

[OriginalShroom]

Every day it is something new with these asses.

I am honestly getting to the point where I am starting to believe we need to totally flush Washington DC and start all over again.

 

[Katzndogz]

Every day it is something new with these asses.

I am honestly getting to the point where I am starting to believe we need to totally flush Washington DC and start all over again.

Total regime change. That's what we need.

 

[Mr. H.]

That is too ******* bizarre.

 

[AmyNation]

While I don't agree with BMW's policy, I don't see how you can possibly consider it "discrimination".

 

[Moonglow]

I hate the fact that even though they do everything they can to hire the right employee it still is not a fair evaluation of the skills one may posses.

 

[Flopper]

I don't follow the commission's line of reasoning. If a job is denied because a person is black, then that clearly is a case of discrimination under Title VII but if it's denied because of a criminal conviction and the person happens to be black, then that would seem to be a different situation. I think the devil is in the details which are not explained in the article.

 

[AmyNation]

They are claiming the scope of the background checks are inherently discriminatory because, in the case of BMW, they don't consider the nature of the crime or when it was committed.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

I don't follow the commission's line of reasoning. If a job is denied because a person is black, then that clearly is a case of discrimination under Title VII .

But if they're denied a job because they're white, as in affirmative action, you liberals say that is NOT discrimination!!

 

[ShootSpeeders]

They are claiming the scope of the background checks are inherently discriminatory because, in the case of BMW, they don't consider the nature of the crime or when it was committed.

Same can be said of govt laws banning anyone with a felony from having a gun. Most felonies are minor drug crimes that have nothing to do with guns or even violence. Similarly with denying someone a cashier's job at Dollar General because of some mickey mouse "felony".

The idiot america has been brainwashed into thinking all felonies are monstrous crimes!!

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

We've lost our minds at this point. A company is screening potential employees for criminal records because people with criminal records represent a liability. And the Obama Administration is now suing because, ta da, most of the people getting screened out are blacks.
EEOC sues over criminal background checks at Dollar General | Nashville City Paper

So basically Daycare businesses across the nation will have to close down then. How can anyone be a Daycare owner and not do criminal background checks on all of their employees? They couldn't. They are responsible for children - they have to know who they are employing.

This should be alarming for any parent who uses daycare. It is opening the floodgates for paedophiles, child abusers, people who hate children, it is the worst idea I've ever heard of. - Jeri

 

[OriginalShroom]

Here is one as a result of Democrats Frank/Dodd...

Yolanda Quesada Fired From Wells Fargo For Shoplifting 40 Years Ago

Imagine getting fired for a crime you committed not one, not two, not three, but four decades ago.

That’s what happened to one Milwaukee woman. Wells Fargo fired Yolanda Quesada after a background check found that she shoplifted in 1972, a local NBC affiliate reports. Though Quesada acknowledges she committed the crime, she says shoplifting shortly after high school shouldn't be something that influences her job standing.

"[I'm] very good at what I do for Wells Fargo," Quesada told the television station.

Quesada, who is now 58, was fired shortly after receiving a report from an FBI background check in the mail, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reports. A Wells Fargo spokesman told the Journal-Sentinel that the company began performing thorough background checks on all existing mortgage unit employees last year "due to legal requirements and changes in the regulatory environment."

"Because Wells Fargo is an insured depository institution, we are bound by federal law that generally prohibits us from hiring or continuing the employment of any person who we know has a criminal record involving dishonesty or breach of trust," Wells Fargo spokesman Jim Hines told the Journal-Sentinel.

Banks hiring workers may be particularly sensitive to taking on employees with a record of property crimes, according to a report from the National Institute of Justice. There is no empirical evidence indicating when it's safe to hire an ex-offender, according to the report. Still, most employers choose an arbitrary statute of limitations that is usually somewhere between five or 10 years.

Additionally, new guidelines from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission now make it easier for employers to hire workers with criminal records. The rules suggest that employers give applicants a chance to explain any crimes on their record before outright rejecting them.

 

[AmyNation]

BMW was current and future employees, dollar general was potential employees.

 

[KevinWestern]

We've lost our minds at this point. A company is screening potential employees for criminal records because people with criminal records represent a liability. And the Obama Administration is now suing because, ta da, most of the people getting screened out are blacks.
EEOC sues over criminal background checks at Dollar General | Nashville City Paper

Eh, this case is a little bit hairy.

Here's my take; you do the dirty work before hiring someone. But it sounds like (at least for the majority of the cases) we're talking folks that were already employees being fired for a new round of background checks:

"Another applicant to Dollar General was fired by the company despite the fact that a report..."

"Fired" implies that this lady was already an employee.

Therefore, I don't agree with the way these two companies are handling their business.


.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Here is one as a result of Democrats Frank/Dodd...

Yolanda Quesada Fired From Wells Fargo For Shoplifting 40 Years Ago

Imagine getting fired for a crime you committed not one, not two, not three, but four decades ago.

That’s what happened to one Milwaukee woman. Wells Fargo fired Yolanda Quesada after a background check found that she shoplifted in 1972, a local NBC affiliate reports. Though Quesada acknowledges she committed the crime, she says shoplifting shortly after high school shouldn't be something that influences her job standing.

"[I'm] very good at what I do for Wells Fargo," Quesada told the television station.

Quesada, who is now 58, was fired shortly after receiving a report from an FBI background check in the mail, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reports. A Wells Fargo spokesman told the Journal-Sentinel that the company began performing thorough background checks on all existing mortgage unit employees last year "due to legal requirements and changes in the regulatory environment."

"Because Wells Fargo is an insured depository institution, we are bound by federal law that generally prohibits us from hiring or continuing the employment of any person who we know has a criminal record involving dishonesty or breach of trust," Wells Fargo spokesman Jim Hines told the Journal-Sentinel.

Banks hiring workers may be particularly sensitive to taking on employees with a record of property crimes, according to a report from the National Institute of Justice. There is no empirical evidence indicating when it's safe to hire an ex-offender, according to the report. Still, most employers choose an arbitrary statute of limitations that is usually somewhere between five or 10 years.

Additionally, new guidelines from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission now make it easier for employers to hire workers with criminal records. The rules suggest that employers give applicants a chance to explain any crimes on their record before outright rejecting them.

What if she had been a paedophile? They do not change their predatory behaviors. So I say the govt should stay out of the hiring practices of private businesses as it isn't any of their business!

 

[Flopper]

They are claiming the scope of the background checks are inherently discriminatory because, in the case of BMW, they don't consider the nature of the crime or when it was committed.

Same can be said of govt laws banning anyone with a felony from having a gun. Most felonies are minor drug crimes that have nothing to do with guns or even violence. Similarly with denying someone a cashier's job at Dollar General because of some mickey mouse "felony".

The idiot america has been brainwashed into thinking all felonies are monstrous crimes!!

Discrimination is not illegal. It's a process we use in daily decision making. Only specific types of discrimination are illegal.

We should discriminate only to the extent required by the job requirements which means we should not use broad strokes in hiring. We should filter applicants based strictly on job requirements.

In a more perfect world, we would consider the type of felony and all circumstances surrounding the arrest and conviction before denying employment or a gun permit but this is not a perfect world.

 

[Katzndogz]

Here is one as a result of Democrats Frank/Dodd...

Yolanda Quesada Fired From Wells Fargo For Shoplifting 40 Years Ago

Imagine getting fired for a crime you committed not one, not two, not three, but four decades ago.

That’s what happened to one Milwaukee woman. Wells Fargo fired Yolanda Quesada after a background check found that she shoplifted in 1972, a local NBC affiliate reports. Though Quesada acknowledges she committed the crime, she says shoplifting shortly after high school shouldn't be something that influences her job standing.

"[I'm] very good at what I do for Wells Fargo," Quesada told the television station.

Quesada, who is now 58, was fired shortly after receiving a report from an FBI background check in the mail, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reports. A Wells Fargo spokesman told the Journal-Sentinel that the company began performing thorough background checks on all existing mortgage unit employees last year "due to legal requirements and changes in the regulatory environment."

"Because Wells Fargo is an insured depository institution, we are bound by federal law that generally prohibits us from hiring or continuing the employment of any person who we know has a criminal record involving dishonesty or breach of trust," Wells Fargo spokesman Jim Hines told the Journal-Sentinel.

Banks hiring workers may be particularly sensitive to taking on employees with a record of property crimes, according to a report from the National Institute of Justice. There is no empirical evidence indicating when it's safe to hire an ex-offender, according to the report. Still, most employers choose an arbitrary statute of limitations that is usually somewhere between five or 10 years.

Additionally, new guidelines from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission now make it easier for employers to hire workers with criminal records. The rules suggest that employers give applicants a chance to explain any crimes on their record before outright rejecting them.

The reason why I would not hire Yolanda Quesada because she shoplifted 40 years ago wouldn't be because she shoplifted but because she is stupid and does not exhibit good judgment. Not because she shoplifted either. Because she didn't pay attention to breaking the law. Shoplifting is not a felony. Shoplifting is a misdemeanor. She had 40 years to get that record expunged. Expungement is the filing of one short piece of paper with a nominal filing fee. In California it's $40.00. So, either Quesada doesn't care, or she is somewhat proud of her criminal record and wants to make sure it stays in place.

 

[AmyNation]

Here is one as a result of Democrats Frank/Dodd...

Yolanda Quesada Fired From Wells Fargo For Shoplifting 40 Years Ago

Imagine getting fired for a crime you committed not one, not two, not three, but four decades ago.

That’s what happened to one Milwaukee woman. Wells Fargo fired Yolanda Quesada after a background check found that she shoplifted in 1972, a local NBC affiliate reports. Though Quesada acknowledges she committed the crime, she says shoplifting shortly after high school shouldn't be something that influences her job standing.

"[I'm] very good at what I do for Wells Fargo," Quesada told the television station.

Quesada, who is now 58, was fired shortly after receiving a report from an FBI background check in the mail, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reports. A Wells Fargo spokesman told the Journal-Sentinel that the company began performing thorough background checks on all existing mortgage unit employees last year "due to legal requirements and changes in the regulatory environment."

"Because Wells Fargo is an insured depository institution, we are bound by federal law that generally prohibits us from hiring or continuing the employment of any person who we know has a criminal record involving dishonesty or breach of trust," Wells Fargo spokesman Jim Hines told the Journal-Sentinel.

Banks hiring workers may be particularly sensitive to taking on employees with a record of property crimes, according to a report from the National Institute of Justice. There is no empirical evidence indicating when it's safe to hire an ex-offender, according to the report. Still, most employers choose an arbitrary statute of limitations that is usually somewhere between five or 10 years.

Additionally, new guidelines from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission now make it easier for employers to hire workers with criminal records. The rules suggest that employers give applicants a chance to explain any crimes on their record before outright rejecting them.

The reason why I would not hire Yolanda Quesada because she shoplifted 40 years ago wouldn't be because she shoplifted but because she is stupid and does not exhibit good judgment. Not because she shoplifted either. Because she didn't pay attention to breaking the law. Shoplifting is not a felony. Shoplifting is a misdemeanor. She had 40 years to get that record expunged. Expungement is the filing of one short piece of paper with a nominal filing fee. In California it's $40.00. So, either Quesada doesn't care, or she is somewhat proud of her criminal record and wants to make sure it stays in place.

Why do you spout such nonsense? It varies per county and most people are not savvy enough to go through the process on their own and end up hiring an attorney or service to help with the paperwork.

 

[The Rabbi]

We've lost our minds at this point. A company is screening potential employees for criminal records because people with criminal records represent a liability. And the Obama Administration is now suing because, ta da, most of the people getting screened out are blacks.
EEOC sues over criminal background checks at Dollar General | Nashville City Paper

Eh, this case is a little bit hairy.

Here's my take; you do the dirty work before hiring someone. But it sounds like (at least for the majority of the cases) we're talking folks that were already employees being fired for a new round of background checks:

"Another applicant to Dollar General was fired by the company despite the fact that a report..."

"Fired" implies that this lady was already an employee.

Therefore, I don't agree with the way these two companies are handling their business.


.

By applicant here I think it means applicant for manager position from store clerk. A friend of mine does the BG checks for Dollar General and this is a lot of what they have.
The issue, as I read it, is that in using the method DG and BMW used they ended up rejecting a larger number of AA applicants. So even though the intent was not discriminatory, the effect was. And that's why they are getting sued.
This is PC run amok.

 

[RoadVirus]

We've lost our minds at this point. A company is screening potential employees for criminal records because people with criminal records represent a liability. And the Obama Administration is now suing because, ta da, most of the people getting screened out are blacks.
EEOC sues over criminal background checks at Dollar General | Nashville City Paper

Big Gov sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong....AGAIN. The EEOC is overstepping it's boundaries.