Discriminating against criminals is now illegal

[Dugdale_Jukes]

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

Had almost any other poster published that it would have more credibility.
No one posting here has a stronger position against government outrages.
Seeing you post something that appears to make sense causes one to wonder if maybe it isn't time to review.

The counter argument would be that if criminal checks are illegal, then employers' legal due-diligence liabilities change big time.
Easy to see how major employers could get behind this. Again, had almost any rational person posted that, I'd have agreed instantly but when one finds oneself on the same side of a line as you, rational people take a closer look.

Now it is clear that trial lawyers have used due diligence against business to the point some unseen lobby is working through a regulatory group to reduce legal expectations and reduce legal liabilities for businesses. The truth is this almost certainly started in a corporate law office and is another exercise in free market thinking. Hard to imagine a nutball coming down on the wrong side of that, but you made it, rabbit.

 

[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

Had almost any other poster published that it would have more credibility.
No one posting here has a stronger position against government outrages.
Seeing you post something that appears to make sense causes one to wonder if maybe it isn't time to review.

The counter argument would be that if criminal checks are illegal, then employers' legal due-diligence liabilities change big time.
Easy to see how major employers could get behind this. Again, had almost any rational person posted that, I'd have agreed instantly but when one finds oneself on the same side of a line as you, rational people take a closer look.

Now it is clear that trial lawyers have used due diligence against business to the point some unseen lobby is working through a regulatory group to reduce legal expectations and reduce legal liabilities for businesses. The truth is this almost certainly started in a corporate law office and is another exercise in free market thinking. Hard to imagine a nutball coming down on the wrong side of that, but you made it, rabbit.

Are you always this incoherent? Do you even know what you're saying?

 

[zeke]

Another applicant to Dollar General was fired by the company despite the fact that a report showing she had a felony conviction was wrong, the EEOC said. Even after she advised Dollar General of the mistake, the Goodlettsville-based company did not reverse its decision to fire her, the agency claimed.


The above quote was in the article you linked to. Did you read the article?

Why should this woman have been fired? The info was wrong.

And the lady at Wells Fargo? Come on. You had Wells Fargo executives making millions of dollars on fradulent mortgage loans and this person loses their long standing job over a shop lifting charge from when she was young and dumb.

And people like you support companies being able to do this? Why?

Yea, the EEOC SHOULD be looking into this kind of bullshit.

And you dumb fuks that support this. Think about this; those people getting fired for bullshit reasons, you think they are going to be rehired by someone else real soon. Especially after they disclose the reason they were fired?

So more people on UE, or welfare. Or just becoming even more poor. All so you can say the government is SO bad.

WTF is wrong with you people?

 

[asaratis]

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

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.

...and it is likely that some people are not aware that the procedure exists.

 

[The Rabbi]

Another applicant to Dollar General was fired by the company despite the fact that a report showing she had a felony conviction was wrong, the EEOC said. Even after she advised Dollar General of the mistake, the Goodlettsville-based company did not reverse its decision to fire her, the agency claimed.


The above quote was in the article you linked to. Did you read the article?

Why should this woman have been fired? The info was wrong.

And the lady at Wells Fargo? Come on. You had Wells Fargo executives making millions of dollars on fradulent mortgage loans and this person loses their long standing job over a shop lifting charge from when she was young and dumb.

And people like you support companies being able to do this? Why?

Yea, the EEOC SHOULD be looking into this kind of bullshit.

And you dumb fuks that support this. Think about this; those people getting fired for bullshit reasons, you think they are going to be rehired by someone else real soon. Especially after they disclose the reason they were fired?

So more people on UE, or welfare. Or just becoming even more poor. All so you can say the government is SO bad.

WTF is wrong with you people?

Do you know how stupid you sound? If the employee was unfairly terminated she can always sue. But I would bet there is more than is being reported.
As for the main part of the story, nothing in your idiotic illiterate rant addresses the issue that the Obama Administration wants to outlaw discrimination based on criminal record. I am sure you suport that since it helps you with your job search for the rest of us it is incredible.

 

[AmyNation]

I'm not sure I would call the EEOC, "the Obama administration".

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm not sure I would call the EEOC, "the Obama administration".

Really? Who do they work for then? What about the NLRB? Is that part of the Obama Administration?

 

[asaratis]

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

This is similar to the flawed argument that blacks are discriminated against regarding incarceration for crimes because the percentage of black criminals behind bars is several times higher than the percentage of blacks in the total population. This is not discrimination. It the result of the fact that the percentage of criminals from the black population is higher than that of criminals from the remainder.

It stands to reason that this would also cause more blacks to be disqualified by way of criminal background checks.

There is no mystery here.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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.

Management says they are responding to "legal requirements and changes in the regulatory environment". That appears to suggest some kind of government interference.

 

[AmyNation]

I'm not sure I would call the EEOC, "the Obama administration".

Really? Who do they work for then? What about the NLRB? Is that part of the Obama Administration?

Sure, it's a government agency and you could say every government agency ultimately falls under "the Obama administration". However, I don't see the office of POTUS as all powerful, and besides picking the chairman 4 years ago I doubt the president has his hands in the EEOC since.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm not sure I would call the EEOC, "the Obama administration".

Really? Who do they work for then? What about the NLRB? Is that part of the Obama Administration?

Sure, it's a government agency and you could say every government agency ultimately falls under "the Obama administration". However, I don't see the office of POTUS as all powerful, and besides picking the chairman 4 years ago I doubt the president has his hands in the EEOC since.

So youthink it is an independent agency, like the IRS?

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Ignoring the black angle, it's about time the discrimination against people who have been to prison ends. If someone does their time, they've paid their debt to society and the shit needs to end.

No wonder the recidivism rates are so high.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ignoring the black angle, it's about time the discrimination against people who have been to prison ends. If someone does their time, they've paid their debt to society and the shit needs to end.

No wonder the recidivism rates are so high.

That smells like narco libertarian bullshit. Recidivism is what it is because criminals are stupid and lazy and inclined to break laws. Same reason why people won't hire them. Same reason that people convicted of financial crimes are barred from working in finance. People convicted of sex crimes are barred from working in certain environments. Etc.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

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

Why couldn't a convicted felon care for children? Do you think they should be sterilized too?

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Ignoring the black angle, it's about time the discrimination against people who have been to prison ends. If someone does their time, they've paid their debt to society and the shit needs to end.

No wonder the recidivism rates are so high.

That smells like narco libertarian bullshit. Recidivism is what it is because criminals are stupid and lazy and inclined to break laws. Same reason why people won't hire them. Same reason that people convicted of financial crimes are barred from working in finance. People convicted of sex crimes are barred from working in certain environments. Etc.

This smells like puritanical fingerpointing shit. If people can't earn honest money, what do you think they'll do, spend the rest of their lives unemployed bemoaning a moment of bad judgment?

The reason puritanical, self-righteous, totaltiarian-minded morons discrminate against people who have been in prison is because they are stupid and lazy and too limited to evaluate people on their strengths and skills.

Denying someone a job in daycare because they are a pedophile is common sense. That's no reason to discriminate against anyone who had done time. Denying someone a job in a store because they robbed a bank in 1983 is just wonderfully stupid.

 

[alan1]

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

I can understand why a retailer like Dollar General would not want to hire a shoplifter or thief. They need a criminal background check to discover that information. In fact, I can understand why every employer doesn't want to hire thief.

 

[alan1]

Ignoring the black angle, it's about time the discrimination against people who have been to prison ends. If someone does their time, they've paid their debt to society and the shit needs to end.

No wonder the recidivism rates are so high.

That smells like narco libertarian bullshit. Recidivism is what it is because criminals are stupid and lazy and inclined to break laws. Same reason why people won't hire them. Same reason that people convicted of financial crimes are barred from working in finance. People convicted of sex crimes are barred from working in certain environments. Etc.

This smells like puritanical fingerpointing shit. If people can't earn honest money, what do you think they'll do, spend the rest of their lives unemployed bemoaning a moment of bad judgment?

The reason puritanical, self-righteous, totaltiarian-minded morons discrminate against people who have been in prison is because they are stupid and lazy and too limited to evaluate people on their strengths and skills.

Denying someone a job in daycare because they are a pedophile is common sense. That's no reason to discriminate against anyone who had done time. Denying someone a job in a store because they robbed a bank in 1983 is just wonderfully stupid.

If Charles Manson ever gets out of prison will you hire him?

 

[Katzndogz]

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

Why couldn't a convicted felon care for children? Do you think they should be sterilized too?

I depends on what they were convicted of. An embezzler might be very good at child care. A sex offender not so much. A convicted embezzler wouldn't be much good as a cashier however. Companies that have close contact with the public are not likely to hire anyone with a past criminal record. If that criminal commits a crime against a customer, the company is automatically liable for hiring that criminal in the first place. Hence the words "presents a liability".

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

Then insurance companies, investment firm and banks who refuse to hire felons are all braking the law?

 

[Katzndogz]

If someone did not want to be discriminated against for being a convicted felon they could always decide not to be a criminal in the first place.