On April 25, 2012, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") voted 4-1 to approve an updated Enforcement Guidance titled "Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." The EEOC also issued a related Questions and Answers document. The newly issued guidance expands on Title VII guidance the EEOC issued more than 20 years ago.
According to the EEOC, the new guidance is predicated on and supported by federal court precedent concerning the application of Title VII to employer consideration of a job applicant's or employee's criminal history and incorporates judicial decisions issued since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The guidance also updates relevant data and consolidates previous EEOC policy statements on the use of criminal history information. The EEOC includes in the guidance examples of steps employers can take to comply with Title VII when making employment decisions based on criminal history. The guidance concludes with recommended "best practices" for employers.
The enforcement guidance generally discusses liability based on disparate treatment, but it focuses on disparate impact liability. According to national criminal history data on which the EEOC relied in drafting the guidance, criminal background-checking policies have a disproportionate effect on racial and ethnic minorities. The national data provides the EEOC with a basis for investigating Title VII disparate impact charges challenging adverse actions based on criminal records.
The enforcement guidance:
Though the enforcement guidance is not binding on employers, it is nevertheless important for employers to examine their policies regarding background checks and applicants' or employees' criminal history because the EEOC will consider the document when enforcing Title VII. Further, although the guidance does not prohibit employers from asking about convictions on job applications or require that employers provide an "individualized assessment" for candidates screened out by a background check, the EEOC will look to see whether employers have these policies in place when investigating a charge challenging an adverse action based on criminal history. When reviewing their policies, employers must also consider risks beyond noncompliance with Title VII, such as liability based on negligent hiring.
If you have any questions associated with this guidance, please contact a member of the firm's Labor and Employment group.
On October 10, James Bowers will share his personal perspectives on the History of Slavery and Race in South Carolina at UConn School of Law.
Day Pitney Alert
Rachel Gonzalez, Mary Rogers and Patrick McCarthy wrote an article "NLRB Eases Organizing of Temporary Workers" for CBIA’s H&R Safety Newsletter on the impact of the recent decision of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
Dan Schwartz and James Leva wrote an article, "Where New Conn. Ban-The-Box Law May Be Headed," for Law360. The article outlines what employers need to know about Connecticut's recently enacted "ban-the-box" law, titled "An Act Concerning Fair Chance Employment."
Day Pitney Alert
Michael Furey was quoted in an article, "NJ Panel Grills Hospitals Over Discovery In Horizon Row," in Law360. Day Pitney is representing five New Jersey hospitals in a lawsuit against Horizon Healthcare, relating to its new, multi-tiered health plan called OMNIA. Furey advocated on behalf of the five hospitals on Wednesday before a New Jersey appeals court that Horizon should turn over a consultant's report and certain agreements relating to how Horizon categorized hospitals under its controversial OMNIA Alliance program and the impact of OMNIA on the hospitals. These Tier 2 hospitals are alleging various claims, including breach of contract and citing concerns that being ranked in the lower tier of the program will cost them business. Horizon contends the sought-after materials, including a financial analysis, strategic alliance agreements and rate agreements between the insurer and OMNIA network hospitals, contain trade secret and confidential information. "If we're going to prove our hospitals should be Tier 1 alliance members, we need the documents and the information," Furey said.
Hartford, Conn., May 26, 2016 - Day Pitney LLP is pleased to announce that Employment and Labor attorney Albert Zakarian has been chosen as a Lifetime Achievement winner of The Connecticut Law Tribune’s second annual Professional Excellence Awards 2016. The Professional Excellence Awards 2016 recognize 28 lawyers, who were chosen from over 60 nominees, as either Lawyer of the Year or Lifetime Achievement recipients, according to The Connecticut Law Tribune. The Lifetime Achievement Awards honor "attorneys who have excelled over a career."
John McLafferty was quoted in an article, "Final overtime regulations less drastic than feared," in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. In the article, McLafferty discusses how the Department of Labor’s final revised federal overtime regulation will impact businesses. "The reality is that the rule made more people eligible for overtime; it didn’t create any obligation for employers to pay more overtime," he said. McLafferty added that the regulation’s impact on employees could have a wider effect on office culture and policies, which may affect a company’s ability to attract and retain workers. In addition, he noted that employers should take this opportunity to ensure that all of their employees are properly classified for overtime purposes.
Albert Zakarian has been chosen as a winner of The Connecticut Law Tribune's second annual Professional Excellence Awards. The awards recognize two dozen lawyers for outstanding service to the profession during their long careers. The publication received more than 70 nominations. Profiles of awardees will appear in the Law Tribune in May. An event will also be held in May to recognize the winners. More about the awards can be found here.
Howard Fetner was quoted in an article, "Judge Allows Company to Withhold Benefits From Departing Employee," in The Connecticut Law Tribune. Fetner represented Community Health Center, Inc. (CHC), a statewide company that provides health care services to low-income patients, in a case in which a former CHC employee sought to recover compensation for unused paid time off. Following a trial, the court ruled in favor of CHC, reinforcing an employer's right to condition the payment of compensation for accrued fringe benefits upon an employee's giving a specified amount of advance notice of termination.