- Labor/employment law: the last four years, and the next [Daniel Schwartz series: first, second, interview] “Some Thoughts on the Meaning of a Second Obama Term for Labor and Employment Law” [Paul Secunda]
- “Alcoholic Tested Without Cause Can Proceed With Bias Claim” [Mary Pat Gallagher, NJLJ]
- “The ‘I’s have it: NLRB says don’t shred those at-will disclaimers just yet” [Jon Hyman]
- “Knox Supreme Court Decision Strengthens Worker Rights” [Mark Mix, Bench Memos]
- “City Councils, EEOC Grapple with Employment Protections for Ex-Convicts” [Shannon Green, Corp Counsel]
- Leftward efforts to constitutionalize labor and employment law [Workplace Prof]
- Should this bother privacy advocates? “NLRB looks to give workers’ private contact info to unions” [Washington Examiner]
- Drama unfolds as backers push right-to-work law in Michigan [Shikha Dalmia]
Posts Tagged ‘criminal records and hiring’
Discrimination law roundup
- In DC today? I’ll be commenting at Cato on new Russell Nieli book on affirmative action [details]
- EEOC continues to pressure employers over use of criminal background checks in hiring process [Hans Bader, Daniel Schwartz, Jon Hyman, earlier]
- Bill in Congress would require employers to make ADA-like accommodation for pregnancy/childbirth [Hyman]
- “Religious freedom and the nondiscrimination norm” [Rick Garnett, Prawfs] What is supposed to make discrimination so tempting, anyway? [Bryan Caplan, EconLib]
- Lawsuit alleges that group car rental discount for members of gay group constitutes unlawful discrimination against straights [Volokh]
- Complainants argue in Strasbourg that UK failure to more fully accommodate Christians violates Euro human rights law [Telegraph]
- Push for ADA coverage of obesity raises controversy [Christina Wilkie, HuffPo]
Great moments in financial employment regulation
Thanks to new federal banking and mortgage guidelines with $1-million-a-day penalties for noncompliance, banks are scrambling to fire any employee who has previously been convicted of a crime involving dishonesty. Among those tossed out: a bank employee with seven years’ service who used a slug in a washing machine in 1963, and a 58-year-old customer service representative with a shoplifting conviction forty years ago. A lawyer says thousands of employees have been fired under the new rules. [Des Moines Register/USA Today via ABA Journal]
Hey, EEOC….
… can we have a heart-to-heart talk about some of what’s wrong with your new guidelines restricting employers from asking about job applicants’ criminal records? [Robin Shea] More: Diane Katz/Heritage, Ted Frank, Federalist Society podcast with Maurice Emsellem, Dominique Ludvikson and Dean Reuter, Brian Wolfman/Public Citizen (favorable to rules). Amy Alkon rounds up several more links, regarding which it should be noted that the EEOC has traditionally conceded an employer’s right to consider an embezzler’s rap sheet when filling a bookkeeping job — but not necessarily an axe-murderer’s rap sheet, since that’s not demonstrably “job-relevant.” Don’t you feel reassured now?
In related news, Roger Clegg reports that the House has passed a provision blocking EEOC enforcement of the guidance, which is encouraging as a preliminary matter; the Senate, however, is very likely to take a different position, and the rider will have no effect if the Senate view prevails. [NRO]
Because what could go wrong?
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is said to be readying policy guidance aimed at curbing employers’ consideration of criminal and credit records in hiring. [WSJ editorial]
“Will restricting criminal background checks actually increase minority unemployment?”
One of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s current big projects — making it legally hazardous for employers to check job applicants’ criminal records — could actually backfire, according to research cited by some members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights [Caroline May, Daily Caller]:
Civil Rights Commissioners Peter Kirsanow, Gail Heriot and Todd Gaziano pointed to research from economists Harry Holzer and Stephen Rafael and public policy professor Michael Stoll, published in the Journal of Law and Economics, which showed that employers with access to background checks are actually more likely to hire African Americans, especially African American men, than those without access to that informaion.
“Their results suggest that, in the absence of criminal background checks, some employers discriminate statistically against black men and/or those with weak employment records,” the commissioners pointed out in their letter to the EEOC.
August 30 roundup
- “He coulda been a credenza”: actor’s estate sues over unauthorized “Brando” furniture line [The Daily via Balko] “Motorcycle Gang Sues Over ‘My Boyfriend’s A Hell’s Angel’ T-Shirt” [CBS-LA]
- EEOC decries employer discrimination on the basis of applicants’ criminal records, recommends curbing background checks [WSJ Law Blog, FastCasual, Hyman, Greenfield] Bill in San Francisco would make felons a protected class in jobs, housing [Fox]
- Why are Obama officials intent on reducing due process protections for those accused of campus sexual misconduct? [Silverglate, WSJ; Philadelphia Magazine, Samantha Harris/NY Post, Ciamarella, Daily Caller (AAUP objects to plan); links at SAVE] A contrasting view [Roderick Hills, Prawfsblawg]
- 9th Circuit rejects Bluetooth class action settlement to which Ted Frank’s CCAF objected [Fisher, NLJ, Frank]
- Lawyer who represents jogger in product liability suit expects to file more actions claiming Skechers sneakers responsible for falls [BLT]
- Part of a balanced breakfast: “Why the lawsuit against Nutella is bunk” [Nadia Arumugam, Slate] Update: Judge denies motion to dismiss [Russell Jackson]
- Experts agree it’s OK to nominate Overlawyered for an ABA “100 Best Legal Blogs” slot here.
“Have you been denied a job based on your Criminal History?”
Class action lawyers are waiting by the phone. [Michael Fox]
Screening out felons as job applicants?
Prepare to meet the EEOC’s wrath [AP/Law.com]. The topic is not new; I wrote about it for Reason quite a while back. More: Julie DelCour, Tulsa World.
May 12 roundup
- Charged $21K at purported “gentleman’s” club: “Plaintiff Has No Recollection of What Transpired in the Private Room” [Lowering the Bar]
- Census Bureau sued for discriminating against applicants based on criminal, arrest records [Clegg, NRO] Class action against Accenture for screening job applicants based on criminal records [Jon Hyman]
- Virtual indeed: “Virtual Freedom” author wants government to regulate Google’s search engine [ConcurOp]
- Contingency fees for public sector lawyering could take California down dangerous path [CJAC]
- “Harvard Law vs. free inquiry: Dean Martha Minow flunks the test” [Peter Berkowitz, Weekly Standard]
- There’ll always be an AAJ: seminar for trial lawyers on “Injuries Without Evidence” [ShopFloor] More: The Briefcase.
- Congress may expand law to enable more age-bias suits [BLT]
- “FTC Closes First Blogger Endorsement Investigation” [Balasubramani, Spam Notes; Citizen Media Law]