One wonders if the usual suspect reactionary retards on this board EVER bother to read what they post. From the article:
The new
55-page document, intended to prevent racial and ethnic discrimination, calls on employers to use criminal background checks only when they can show they are job-related and necessary for the business. For example, the guidelines say employers should consider the "nature of the crime, the time elapsed and the nature of the job."
The guidelines also caution that "arrests are not proof of criminal conduct" and may not be sufficient to exclude a candidate.
The EEOC acted in part because blacks and Hispanics are far more likely to get caught up in the legal system. Given current incarceration rates, about one in 17 white men are likely to serve time in prison during their lifetimes, compared with one in three African-American men, the agency said.
Employer advocates were pleased the EEOC did not entirely bar the use of criminal background checks.
“The new guidance may require employers to tweak existing policies, but is largely a collective restatement of the EEOC's longstanding guidance documents on employer use of criminal background checks,” said Katharine Parker, an employment attorney for Proskauer.
The EEOC does not have the authority to ban “all uses of arrest or conviction records or other screening devices,” said EEOC spokeswoman Christine Nazer. “The EEOC simply seeks to ensure that their use are undertaken carefully to ensure that employment opportunities are not denied inappropriately.”
So, the rules require that you have a job related reason to check. If the position calls for someone to go into people's homes, maybe to deliver furniture or do some kind of work, you can still do the check. Even the attorney for employers says it really doesn't change anything other than make sure that there is some kind of relationship between the job and the background check.
Forums |
