U.S. Civil Rights Commissioners Take EEOC to Task on Background Checks

Nick Fishman

Assessing the Impact of Criminal Background Checks

As many of your know, I had the privilege of providing testimony to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights at their hearing on the impact of criminal background checks and the EEOC’s conviction policy on the employment of Black and Hispanic workers in December of 2012.

After great debate and deliberation, the commission released their official statements regarding the hearing in mid-February. I’ve been dissecting the material for a couple weeks now and there is simply no way to give you all of the highlights and lowlights. Instead, I’d like to focus on the conclusion (below) drawn by Commissioner Peter N. Kirsanow (joined by Vice Chair Thernstrom and Commissioner Gaziano), in which I’ve highlighted several key points.

The last part of their conclusion says it all for me: “The EEOC seems to live in a magical world where forcing employers to hire a person they do not want to hire because he may be untrustworthy or dangerous has no costs. But just because the EEOC does not see the cost doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.”

No one wants a truly reformed ex-offender to be forever unemployed. The question is whether this Guidance is the best way, or even a reasonable way, of increasing employment among ex-offenders. The EEOC should also remember that employers’ interests should be taken into account as well. After all, they are not the ones who broke the law. “I was complying with the EEOC’s Guidance” is not much of a defense in a negligent hiring lawsuit. Although the Guidance does not prohibit the use of criminal background checks, it strongly discourages their use and encourages employers to err on the side of hiring ex-offenders.

In many cases, the Guidance encourages employers to hire an ex-offender against their better judgment. If that were not so, employers would be leaping to hire ex-offenders without being prodded by the EEOC. Whether the employer fears the ex-offender will steal from the business or harm a customer, it is foolish to push him to override his judgment, especially when sixty percent of ex-offenders will recidivate.

EEOC Commissioner Lipnic and Ms. Miaskoff both portrayed this guidance as a mere refinement of the 1987 Guidance, rather than a sharp departure. But then why would EEOC Commissioner Lipnic state that a blanket rule against hiring felons would no longer be permissible? That is a sharp departure from previous practice.

Additionally, the effort the EEOC has put into publicizing this Guidance, taken in conjunction with the many lawsuits it has filed over the last few years regarding the use of criminal history in hiring, suggests that the EEOC will be interpreting and enforcing the Guidance more aggressively than it has in the past. 

The EEOC and various groups representing ex-offenders will argue that a criminal record should not be a life-long scarlet letter. If ex-offenders cannot find employment, they are more likely to reoffend. Fair enough. But the burden of rehabilitation shouldn’t fall on private companies. If a company believes that an applicant is the best person for a job regardless of their criminal record, they will hire them. If they wouldn’t hire the person with a criminal record but for the fear of an EEOC investigation, the employment market is distorted and a cost is imposed on the company.

Griggs imposes this sort of regime on companies with regard to race and the use of tests and education requirements, but at least Title VII was clearly enacted to prohibit racial discrimination. Despite the Guidance’s invocation of disparate impact theory, the main goal is to increase the employment of ex-offenders. Title VII was definitely not enacted to prohibit discrimination on the basis of criminal history. If the country wants to shift the cost of criminal rehabilitation onto private employers, Congress should pass a statute prohibiting discrimination on the basis of criminal history. Otherwise, this is outside the EEOC’s purview.

The Guidance will have other costs too. For small companies that have the resources to hire attorneys, figuring out how to comply with the Guidance will cost several thousand dollars – money that could have been used to hire a new employee. For large companies, complying with the Guidance will add another level of inefficiency to hiring. In an effort to avoid the eye of the EEOC, companies may avoid using background checks and simply hire only the number of blacks they need to avoid scrutiny – and no more. The EEOC seems to live in a magical world where forcing employers to hire a person they do not want to hire because he may be untrustworthy or dangerous has no costs. But just because the EEOC does not see the cost doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

I don’t believe that the EEOC went out of their way to hatch a sinister plan to systematically punish employers. However, that might just be my naivete. If they did, that’s a much bigger problem. This past summer, I offered 5 suggestions for what can be done to allay employment background check discrimination concerns. It would be great if all interested parties got together and crafted a workable solution for all involved.









Nick Fishman
Follow Me

Nick Fishman

Nick Fishman is the co-founder of EmployeeScreenIQ, a leading, global employment background screening provider, and serves as the company’s executive vice president and chief marketing officer. He pioneered the creation of EmployeeScreen University, the #1 educational resource on employment background checks for human resources, security and risk management professionals. A recognized industry expert, Nick is a frequent author, presenter and contributor to the news media. Nick is also a licensed private investigator in the states of Ohio and Texas.
Nick Fishman
Follow Me
Tweet
Share
Email
Share