Obama Administration: Refuse To Hire Convicted Felons…YOU Get Dragged To Court

[formerlurker]

Obama Administration: Refuse To Hire Convicted Felons…YOU Get Dragged To Court
Posted on 02/18/2013

All of my fellow small-business owners, now we’ve got this to worry about:

    Should it be a federal crime for businesses to refuse to hire ex-convicts? Yes, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which recently released 20,000 convoluted words of regulatory “guidance” to direct businesses to hire more felons and other ex-offenders.

    Most businesses perform criminal background checks on job applicants, but the EEOC guidance frowns on such checks and creates new legal tripwires that could spark federal lawsuits. One EEOC commissioner who opposed the new policy, Constance Barker, warned in April that “the only real impact the new Guidance will have will be to scare business owners from ever conducting criminal background checks. . . . The Guidance tells them that they are taking a tremendous risk if they do.”

Note what the Obama administration objects to– not just the “no hiring felons” policy, but simply doing any criminal background checks in the first place.

Go to link for why...

[txradioguy]

And the next step will be letting felons vote.

[DefiantSix]

They've voted in at least the past two elections.  May as well make it official.

[NHSparky]

I wonder how they'll feel about letting those folks walk around airports, nuke plants, etc...

[17 Oaks]

Outlaws, in laws, crooks, gays, lesbians, transgender, felons, pedofiles, communists, blacks,  and every minority they can find add to that another 11 Million ILLEGALS who are going to walk in the door with a free pass, go on welfare, suck up free medical care, go to school free (of course according to some in Congress, all the ILLEGALS are ALL Doctors, Engineers and Scientists working for nothing picking cabbage because they are ILLEGAL...



"the constitution was written by a bunch of old white men who owned slaves"

[thundley4]

Great idea.  Hire convicted pedophiles to work in daycare centers, hire convicted embezzlers to work at banks, hire shop lifters to work at jewelry stores.

[DefiantSix]

I wonder how they'll feel about letting those folks walk around airports, nuke plants, etc...

Probably pretty okay with it, especially if they'd found Jesus Islam while they were in stir.

[Karin]

I simply don't understand how this can be, in an employment-at-will system.  DAT, if you wander by:  If an employer is fined for this, does he have a standing for a lawsuit? 

[DumbAss Tanker]

There is no Federal statute that EEOC can directly point to that prohibits discrimination based on a prior conviction, it's based on a 'Disparate impact' theory of racial discrimination.  Frankly I think it would fail in real court, but it could take several years of screwing around with EEOC administrative hearings and strong-arm DOJ tactics costing thousands of dollars to defend before you actually got there.  Thing is, you could count on DOJ to pick someone to sue for it who wasn't clean of any shadow of a doubt on the racial motive, so they could bully everyone else with the precedent afterward if they won.  They wouldn't want to pick anyone too dirty either (On either side of the case) for their case because then any decision they got wouldn't be based on the grounds they would be wanting the precedent set.

Most people come to grief on their criminal records by omitting them from their job app, not by declaring themselves to be convicts, and get terminated after hiring for falsifying their application.  It opens up a huge can of worms where the company doesn't turn someone down because of a conviction, but because they require the applicant be bondable, and the bond company refuses to issue due to a felony conviction...is EEOC then saying they will go after the bonding company, or does having a third party turn the felon down wash the hiring company's hands?

Really, employment-at-will comes into play in the termination process, not so much the hiring one, it really wouldn't matter whether it was an employment at will state or not on this particular issue.

[txradioguy]

There is no Federal statute that EEOC can directly point to that prohibits discrimination based on a prior conviction, it's based on a 'Disparate impact' theory of racial discrimination.  Frankly I think it would fail in real court, but it could take several years of screwing around with EEOC administrative hearings and strong-arm DOJ tactics costing thousands of dollars to defend before you actually got there.  Thing is, you could count on DOJ to pick someone to sue for it who wasn't clean of any shadow of a doubt on the racial motive, so they could bully everyone else with the precedent afterward if they won.  They wouldn't want to pick anyone too dirty either (On either side of the case) for their case because then any decision they got wouldn't be based on the grounds they would be wanting the precedent set.

Most people come to grief on their criminal records by omitting them from their job app, not by declaring themselves to be convicts, and get terminated after hiring for falsifying their application.  It opens up a huge can of worms where the company doesn't turn someone down because of a conviction, but because they require the applicant be bondable, and the bond company refuses to issue due to a felony conviction...is EEOC then saying they will go after the bonding company, or does having a third party turn the felon down wash the hiring company's hands?

Really, employment-at-will comes into play in the termination process, not so much the hiring one, it really wouldn't matter whether it was an employment at will state or not on this particular issue.

IMO...what you'll see is some organization like the ACLU to send their lawyers to swoop down on the first company that doesn't comply and keep them tied up in litigation long enough that it becomes cheaper to settle than stand up for what's right.

After that the rest of the companies will fall into line rather than waste $$$ money on what amounts to nuisance lawsuit.

[DumbAss Tanker]

ACLU won't need to waste a dime of their money on it, if the DOJ is going to carry the water on this BS.  I'm sure NAACP and ACLU would both want to file amicus briefs so they could go for cred in the case, of course.

[RobJohnson]

And the next step will be letting felons vote.

In some states they can already vote. In the state of Maine you can vote from Prison.


http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=286

[Dori]

Is it just me, or does it feel like this Administration is just tightening the screws to force a rebellion?

[Eupher]

Is it just me, or does it feel like this Administration is just tightening the screws to force a rebellion?

An armed rebellion? Not likely. That's something even Barry doesn't want to contemplate.

But a financial collapse, certainly. That way the government can assert even more authority and do so without much more than a whimper from the people.

[CG6468]

An armed rebellion? Not likely. That's something even Barry doesn't want to contemplate.

But a financial collapse, certainly. That way the government can assert even more authority and do so without much more than a whimper from the people.

But he and his tribe COULD generate an armed rebellion.

[Eupher]

But he and his tribe COULD generate an armed rebellion.

Theoretically possible, but I seriously doubt that any sort of armed rebellion would be 1), organized; 2), widespread (meaning pockets of resistance only); and 3), effective.

If something like that were to happen, Barry would do the same thing that LBJ did - call up the National Guard and squash the uprising. The MSM would help him portray those who were rebelling as being nose-picking doomsdayers embracing and extolling the virtues of incest.

[17 Oaks]

There is no Federal statute that EEOC can directly point to that prohibits discrimination based on a prior conviction, it's based on a 'Disparate impact' theory of racial discrimination.  Frankly I think it would fail in real court, but it could take several years of screwing around with EEOC administrative hearings and strong-arm DOJ tactics costing thousands of dollars to defend before you actually got there.  Thing is, you could count on DOJ to pick someone to sue for it who wasn't clean of any shadow of a doubt on the racial motive, so they could bully everyone else with the precedent afterward if they won.  They wouldn't want to pick anyone too dirty either (On either side of the case) for their case because then any decision they got wouldn't be based on the grounds they would be wanting the precedent set.

Most people come to grief on their criminal records by omitting them from their job app, not by declaring themselves to be convicts, and get terminated after hiring for falsifying their application.  It opens up a huge can of worms where the company doesn't turn someone down because of a conviction, but because they require the applicant be bondable, and the bond company refuses to issue due to a felony conviction...is EEOC then saying they will go after the bonding company, or does having a third party turn the felon down wash the hiring company's hands?

Really, employment-at-will comes into play in the termination process, not so much the hiring one, it really wouldn't matter whether it was an employment at will state or not on this particular issue.

You are forgetting that His Impreial Highness, HEIL Obama, HEIL Obama, HEIL Obama, rules by Fiat, Executive Order and Regulations, nothing else matter, Congress no longer makes laws in this country, its the EPA, ATF, IRS and ANY other govt agency that choses to do so....

[rich_t]

You are forgetting that His Impreial Highness, HEIL Obama, HEIL Obama, HEIL Obama, rules by Fiat, Executive Order and Regulations, nothing else matter, Congress no longer makes laws in this country, its the EPA, ATF, IRS and ANY other govt agency that choses to do so....

True, and Congress can blame only themselves for that.  They are the ones that gave such agencies the authority to pass regulations that have the force of law.  They are the ones that are responsible for the over sight of such agencies and frequently turn a blind eye to the abuses of such agencies.

[Ptarmigan]

True, and Congress can blame only themselves for that.  They are the ones that gave such agencies the authority to pass regulations that have the force of law.  They are the ones that are responsible for the over sight of such agencies and frequently turn a blind eye to the abuses of such agencies.

Congress are a bunch of clowns.

[rich_t]

Congress are a bunch of clowns.

Yup.  Most of them anyway.

[Ptarmigan]

Yup.  Most of them anyway.

They are even worse than CEOs, lawyers, actors, and journalists.

[JohnnyReb]

They are even worse than CEOs, lawyers, actors, and journalists.

Well, if affirmative action can't get a brother a job, a felony conviction will.

[Chris_]

Well, if affirmative action can't get a brother a job, a felony conviction will.

Hope and change!

[thundley4]

Well, if affirmative action can't get a brother a job, a felony conviction will.

Most of those "brothers" never go looking for a job.  Now they will hoping to get turned down just to file a lawsuit.

[CG6468]

Most of those "brothers" never go looking for a job.  Now they will hoping to get turned down just to file a lawsuit and to have a reason to go out and kill someone with their illegal firearm.