As noted by a Hunton blog, “Dollar General and the [EEOC] settled a six-year-old Title VII lawsuit. The EEOC brought its race discrimination claim on behalf of a Charging Party and a class of Black job applicants, alleging that Dollar General’s use of criminal justice history information in the hiring process had a disparate impact… Continue reading After Six Years, Dollar General and the EEOC Settle
A second blog post will follow about some new work being done by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) that could impact employment screening, but for now, let’s look back in time before moving forward.
A bill is being heard tomorrow in the Connecticut Joint Committee on the Judiciary that would require Connecticut employers to adhere the EEOC guidance on the use of criminal history information. CDIA opposes this bill. If the bill passes, Connecticut employers, unlike employers in most other states, would be required to comply with EEOC guidance that does not have… Continue reading CDIA Opposes a Bill in Connecticut That Would Limit Employment Screening
CDIA filed supplemental testimony with the House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections of the House Education and the Workforce Committee in connection with its March 24, 2015 hearing on a package of bills intended to reform EEOC practices. Our testimony clears up a number of misstatements made at the hearing. The testimony offered now builds on the written… Continue reading CDIA Provides Testimony to Congress
On March 24, 2015, there was a hearing on a package of EEOC reform bills before the House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections of the House Education and the Workforce Committee. The committee took testimony on four bills: H.R. 548, the Certainty in Enforcement Act of 2015; H.R. 549, the Litigation Oversight Act of 2015; H.R. 550,… Continue reading House Holds Another EEOC Hearing
A new brief was filed by the EEOC in Texas v. EEOC that makes one wonder why the EEOC continues to spend a lot of time and money investigating and suing over guidance that it says has no legal impact, creates no legal obligations, and causes no injury. Texas v. EEOC, Texas is claiming that the EEOC’s… Continue reading EEOC Fights Over Guidance it Says Has No Legal Impact, Creates No Legal Obligations, and Causes No Injury
By denying BMW access to the EEOC’s hiring policies regarding the use of criminal background checks, a U.S. magistrate in South Carolina took the opposite view of federal courts in Ohio and Maryland. Federal courts in Ohio and Maryland held that the EEOC’s use of criminal background checks was relevant in the Commission’s litigation against Kaplan… Continue reading What’s Good for the Goose, Ought to be Good for the Gander, Part III
SeyfarthShaw, which closely tracks EEOC litigation, released some observations about the Commission’s litigation in the preceding fiscal year. You can find more detail in the firm’s blog entry, Déjà Vu All Over Again which “explores this annual governmental filing phenomenon and what it means to employers in its aftermath.”
The Subcommittee on Workforce Protections of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce announced another oversight hearing of the EEOC. The September 17 hearing will focus on three EEOC reform bills: H.R. 4959, the EEOC Transparency and Accountability Act; H.R. 5422, the Litigation Oversight Act of 2014; and H.R. 5423, the Certainty in Enforcement Act… Continue reading Another EEOC Oversight Hearing
SeyfarthShaw partner, Gerald Maatman, Jr., asks a very good question: Is The EEOC’s Role To Enforce The Law, Or Make New Law?