ILNews

Changes may prompt review of background check policies

August 14, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

For more than 20 years, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has taken the position that an employer’s use of applicants’ criminal history in making employment decisions may constitute discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. The underlying premise has always been that because minorities are historically and statistically arrested and incarcerated at higher rates than their representation in the general population, the use of criminal records by employers in making hiring and retention decisions may be discriminatory.

erdel-katherine.jpg Erdel

The EEOC’s enforcement guidance

Citing increased access to criminal history information as motivation, the EEOC issued an updated “Enforcement Guidance” memo on this topic in April of 2012. This past June, the EEOC filed two lawsuits against employers alleging that the employers’ respective criminal background policies violated Title VII. The lawsuits both seem to highlight the EEOC’s increased interest in the potential discriminatory impact of employers’ use of criminal records in employment decisions.

In EEOC v. BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC, pending in the U.S. District Court of South Carolina, the EEOC alleges that BMW’s background check policy disproportionately screened out African-Americans and that the policy is not job related or consistent with business necessity. The second suit, a nationwide lawsuit pending in District Court in Chicago, EEOC v. Dolgencorp (which does business as Dollar General), addresses discrimination charges filed by two rejected black applicants. That suit alleges that Dollar General conditions its job offers on criminal background checks and that the policy results in a disparate impact against blacks.

Indiana law

States, including Indiana, are also showing an increased interest in this area. Though there is no federal law or law in Indiana prohibiting employers from using criminal background information in the hiring process, a new state background check law includes several provisions aimed at limiting the types of information that may be disclosed to employers in Indiana.

Effective July 1, 2013, House Enrolled Act 1033 (2012) permits Indiana residents with restricted or sealed criminal records to state on an employment application that they have not been adjudicated, arrested or convicted of the offense included in the restricted records. On the flip side, the new law prohibits employers from asking about sealed and restricted criminal records, and courts are prohibited from disclosing information related to certain infractions. For example, a court cannot disclose information related to an infraction (which generally includes traffic citations and other minor violations) when the individual has satisfied the judgment and five years has passed since that satisfaction. Criminal history providers may be penalized for violating this law, including up to $1,000 for a first violation, up to $5,000 for a second violation, actual damages, liquidated damages, and costs and attorney’s fees. The text of the bill can be found at: http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2012/HE/HE1033.1.html.

Appropriate use of criminal history information

While Indiana law and the EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance provide clear guidance on certain prohibited conduct, many employers are still unclear on what they can and should do to appropriately use criminal history information in the hiring process. In its Enforcement Guidance, which can be found at www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/arrest_conviction.cfm, the EEOC concludes that employers cannot exclude an applicant from employment based on an arrest record alone. The EEOC also recommends that “employers not ask about convictions on job applications and that, if and when [employers] make such inquiries, the inquiries be limited to convictions for which exclusion would be job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.”

Policy validation under the EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance

The EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance goes on to suggest two methods under which an employer may be able to “validate” that its background check policy and use of criminal records to exclude individuals from employment is job related and consistent with business necessity.

The first involves validation using Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, found at 29 C.F.R §1607. However, the EEOC seems to acknowledge that this particular method is currently unworkable given the limited amount of empirical data on the links between certain conduct, criminal histories and job performance. As a result, most employers will likely need to rely upon the second method to determine whether its policies and practices are job related and consistent with business necessity.

Under the second method proposed by the EEOC, an employer first develops a “targeted screen” that considers, at a minimum, the nature of the crime, the time elapsed since the offense or completion of the sentence, and the nature of the job. After an applicant has been preliminarily disqualified by the screen, the employer conducts an individualized assessment to determine whether the screen, as applied, is actually job related and consistent with business necessity.

For example, if employer XYZ determines that any individual who has been convicted of embezzlement in a business setting in the last five years should be preliminarily disqualified from a job as an accounting department manager, XYZ has likely created a reasonable “targeted screen” that takes into account the three factors required by the EEOC. However, when applicant John Doe applies for an accounting department manager position and is preliminarily screened out because of his four-year-old embezzlement conviction, XYZ must then talk with Mr. Doe and conduct an individualized assessment.

The EEOC provides a list of criteria that employers should consider in the course of an individualized assessment: whether the individual identified in the report is the same individual who has applied for the position; the facts or circumstances surrounding the conduct; the number of offenses; older age at the time of conviction or release; evidence that the individual has performed the same type of work successfully post-conviction; the length and consistency of employment history before and after the conduct; rehabilitation efforts (like education or training); employment or character references or other information regarding fitness for the position; and whether the individual is bonded under a state or local bonding program. Only after considering all of these factors should XYZ make its ultimate decision as to whether or not to hire Mr. Doe.

Simple, right? Not quite. As interest grows in this area and as the courts involved hand down decisions on related cases, additional guidance and examples should be forthcoming. In the meantime, all attorneys, especially those who advise employers, should familiarize themselves with the EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance and HEA 1033 (2012).•

__________

Katherine G. Erdel is a member of Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP’s Labor and Employment Practice Group, focusing her practice in the areas of discrimination defense, wage and hour advice, general workplace policies, and employment agreements and covenants not to compete. Kate regularly advises clients in these areas and is familiar with background checks, pre-employment inquiries and other employment best-practice issues. Opinions expressed are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT