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.
Day Pitney Alert
Day Pitney Alert
Day Pitney Alert
Heather Weine Brochin and Gregory Tabakman authored an article entitled "Third Circuit Advises that Employer Must Pay Employees for Short Rest Breaks," which was published by the New Jersey Law Journal.
Day Pitney partner Francine Esposito will speak at the upcoming webinar "Workplace Leave Laws: Strategies to Navigate the Changing Landscape in the U.S." Taking place on Sept. 14 at 2 p.m., the webinar is the first in a series of webinars hosted by the Employment Law Alliance (ELA) on workplace leave laws around the globe.
John McLafferty was quoted in an article, "Employment Lawyers Leery of Bill Banning NDAs, Arbitration," published by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.
Heather Weine Brochin was quoted in an article, "Confidentiality Disqualifies Harassment Settlement Tax Deductions," published on the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) website.
John McLafferty was quoted in an article, "How Employers' Haunted House and Fright Night Went Way Wrong," published on the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) website.
Michael Furey was quoted in an article, "The Biggest New Jersey Cases of 2016," which was published in Law360.
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.