Hands-Tied Hiring: How the EEOC’s Individualized Assessment is Taking Discretion Away From Employers’ Use of Criminal Background Checks

This article argues that the 2012 EEOC Guidance should not be given deference by the courts. Specifically, the Guidance’s individualized assessment, which imposes a heightened requirement on employers to justify their background check policies, is problematic in three important ways. First, the indi...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:  
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Valdez, Carrie (Autor)
Tipo de documento: Electrónico Libro
Lenguaje:Inglés
Publicado: 2015
En:Año: 2015
Acceso en línea: Volltext (kostenfrei)
Verificar disponibilidad: HBZ Gateway

MARC

LEADER 00000cam a22000002c 4500
001 1866156667
003 DE-627
005 20250116054854.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 231018s2015 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
035 |a (DE-627)1866156667 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1866156667 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 2,1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Valdez, Carrie  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Hands-Tied Hiring: How the EEOC’s Individualized Assessment is Taking Discretion Away From Employers’ Use of Criminal Background Checks 
264 1 |c 2015 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a This article argues that the 2012 EEOC Guidance should not be given deference by the courts. Specifically, the Guidance’s individualized assessment, which imposes a heightened requirement on employers to justify their background check policies, is problematic in three important ways. First, the individualized assessment places an impractical burden by what it requires and whom it requires to conduct such an assessment. Second, employer liability for negligent hiring may actually increase if employers perform individualized assessments. Finally, the practical effect of the individualized assessment may be decreased employer reliance on criminal background checks, and the result will likely not be a better hiring outcome for minority applicants. Part II of this article provides a background of the disparate impact theory of discrimination and the defense of business necessity, surveys employers’ use of criminal background checks, explains the theory of negligent hiring, discusses the EEOC, the individualized assessment, and the EEOC’s initiative to aggressively regulate employers’ use of background checks, and examines recent cases litigating this issue. Part III analyzes the impractical burden the EEOC’s individualized assessment places on employers, argues that enforcement of the individualized assessment may increase employer liability for negligent hiring, and explores the contention that fewer minorities will, in fact, be hired if fewer employers rely on criminal background checks in making their hiring decisions. Part IV offers a solution that aims to satisfy the EEOC’s goal of eliminating the adverse impact of criminal background checks on blacks and Hispanics while simultaneously avoiding the impracticalities, inconsistencies, and other problems of the new Guidance 
856 4 0 |u https://core.ac.uk/download/216943113.pdf  |x Verlag  |z kostenfrei  |3 Volltext  |7 0 
935 |a mkri 
951 |a BO 
ELC |a 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4391837420 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1866156667 
LOK |0 005 20231018043725 
LOK |0 008 231018||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-2619)CORE63034013 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-2619  |c DE-627  |d DE-2619 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-2619 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a core 
LOK |0 939   |a 18-10-23  |b l01 
OAS |a 1 
ORI |a SA-MARC-krimdoka001.raw