The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) continues to
challenge employers' seemingly legitimate reliance on
background checks as part of the hiring process. Recent
developments indicate that the heat is intensifying both on
employers and the EEOC.
On August 9, 2013, a Maryland federal court dealt the EEOC a
significant loss in a class action case brought by the EEOC,
challenging an employer's use of criminal background and credit
history in making hiring decisions. Undaunted, however, the EEOC
continues to pursue two newly filed, high-profile cases against BMW
and Dollar General, challenging their use of background checks in
the hiring process. In all three cases, the EEOC takes the position
that the employer's process for conducting background screens
has a disparate impact against minorities and therefore constitutes
unlawful race discrimination.
Through its words and its actions, the EEOC has indicated that
scrutinizing background check procedures will be one of its highest
enforcement priorities in 2013. The EEOC does not allege that
merely conducting background checks is unlawful, but takes the
position that, in most cases, automatically excluding applicants
with certain types of convictions is improper. Rather, the EEOC
advocates an individualized inquiry that takes into account such
factors as the amount of time that has passed since a conviction,
the nature of the job applied for and the nature of the
Several states and localities also have recently passed "ban
the box" legislation. These laws place additional restrictions
on when in the application process employers may ask applicants
about criminal convictions.
In light of the EEOC's aggressive position on this issue and
the emergence of state and local "ban the box" rules,
employers are strongly encouraged to take a fresh look at their
existing policies and procedures for conducting background checks.
Employers that proactively revise their procedures can make
significant strides toward avoiding the excessive costs inherent in
defending a discrimination lawsuit, especially a potential class
action, as well as avoiding liability under state and local
"ban the box" laws.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
A recently publicized settlement with the Office of Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services highlights that it is not only important to have a HIPAA-compliant form of business associate agreement, but also to train staff to identify and carefully analyze when a BAA is required.
North Memorial Health Care of Minnesota ("North Memorial"), a comprehensive not-for-profit health care system, has agreed to pay $1.55 million to settle charges that it potentially violated the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules.
We've thought a lot about the various secondary entities
that plaintiffs sometimes sue in prescription medical product
liability litigation – such as sales reps, physicians,
hospitals, pharmacies, distributors, and a number of others.
The US Department of Labor (DOL) has provided guidance on health plan provisions that could trigger a violation of the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA), as amended by the Affordable Care Act.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).