EEOC announces new guidance on the use of criminal background checks under Title VII that focuses on individualized assessments of past crimes

Yesterday afternoon, the EEOC announced its long awaited, and, by employers, long dreaded, Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions under Title VII (along with a short and sweet Q&A).

The Guidance is not nearly as bad for employers as it could have been. Anyone who feared that the agency would over-reach and proclaim that pre-employment criminal background checks per se violate Title VII will be greatly relieved. As SHRM points out:

SHRM is pleased that the guidance does not appear to impose a one-size-fits-all set of rules on employers and seems to take into consideration that every employer will have different needs and concerns in the use of criminal background checks in hiring.

Nevertheless, the Guidance is not perfect. For example, “as a best practice, and consistent with applicable laws,” the EEOC “recommends that employers not ask about convictions on job applications.” While I certainly appreciate the EEOC’s recommendation, I’m not sure what “applicable laws” it references. This attempt to codify “ban the box” is one clear example where the EEOC is over-reaching.

Perhaps the most controversial piece of the new Guidance is the EEOC’s belief that to survive a potential disparate impact claim, employers must develop a targeted screen that considers at least the nature of the crime, the time elapsed, and the nature of the job, and then must provide an opportunity for an individualized assessment to determine if the policy as applied is job related and consistent with business necessity.

In engaging in this individualized assessment, the EEOC directs employers to consider the following factors:

Individualized assessment generally means that an employer informs the individual that he may be excluded because of past criminal conduct; provides an opportunity to the individual to demonstrate that the exclusion does not properly apply to him; and considers whether the individual’s additional information shows that the policy as applied is not job related and consistent with business necessity.

The individual’s showing may include information that he was not correctly identified in the criminal record, or that the record is otherwise inaccurate.

Other relevant individualized evidence for employers to consider includes:

• The facts or circumstances surrounding the offense or conduct;
• The number of offenses for which the individual was convicted;
• Older age at the time of conviction, or release from prison;
• Evidence that the individual performed the same type of work, post conviction, with the same or a different employer, with no known incidents of criminal conduct;
• The length and consistency of employment history before and after the offense or conduct;
• Rehabilitation efforts (e.g., education/training);
• Employment or character references and any other information regarding fitness for the particular position; and
• Whether the individual is bonded under a federal, state, or local bonding program.

I’m not aware of any requirement under Title VII that requires an individualized assessment in all circumstances. In the EEOC’s opinion, however, forgoing a screen that includes the individualized assessment will make it difficult, if not impossible, for an employer to justify a criminal background check as job related and consistent with business necessity. Yet, applying this individualized assessment for all applicants will impose a heavy burden on employers. And, the greater an employer’s attrition and hiring needs, the heavier that burden will become.

The EEOC concludes by suggesting some best practices for employers who consider criminal record information when making employment decisions:

• Develop a narrowly tailored written policy and procedure for screening applicants and employees for criminal conduct.
• The policy should Identify essential job requirements and the actual circumstances under which the jobs are performed.
• The policy should also determine the specific offenses that may demonstrate unfitness for performing such jobs, and the duration of exclusions for criminal conduct.
• Record the justification for the policy, procedures, and exclusions, including a record of consultations and research considered in crafting the policy and procedures.
• Train managers, hiring officials, and decisionmakers on how to implement the policy and procedures consistent with Title VII.

There is a lot to digest in this comprehensive policy guidance. For example, the EEOC discusses the differences between arrest records and conviction records, and provides specific examples of exclusions that will and will not fall under the umbrella of job related and consistent with business necessity.

This Enforcement Guidance is required reading for any business that takes arrest or conviction records into consideration in any employment decision.

EEOC pronounces protections for transgender workers

Title VII does not, on its face, protect transgender workers from discrimination. Increasingly, however, courts have extended its protections under the umbrella of Title VII’s protections against sex-stereotyping-as-gender-discrimination, as first explained 23 years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court in its landmark Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins decision:

In saying that gender played a motivating part in an employment decision, we mean that, if we asked the employer at the moment of the decision what its reasons were and if we received a truthful response, one of those reasons would be that the applicant or employee was a woman. In the specific context of sex stereotyping, an employer who acts on the basis of a belief that a woman cannot be aggressive, or that she must not be, has acted on the basis of gender.

Earlier this week, the EEOC made what might be the most significant pronouncement to date on the issue of the protection of transgender as gender discrimination. Macy v. Holder [pdf] involved a transgender woman, Mia Macy, who claimed that the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms denied her a job after she announced she was transitioning from male to female.

In reinstating Macy’s Title VII claim, the EEOC concluded:

That Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination proscribes gender discrimination, and not just discrimination on the basis of biological sex, is important…. Title VII prohibits discrimination based on sex whether motivated by hostility by a desire to protect people or a certain gender, by assumptions that disadvantage men, by gender stereotypes, or by the desire to accommodate other people's prejudices or discomfort….

Thus, we conclude that intentional discrimination against a transgender individual because that person is transgender is, by definition, discrimination “based on … sex,” and such discrimination therefore violates Title VII.

While this opinion is not binding on courts, one cannot overstate the significance of the fact that the agency responsible for enforcing the federal EEO laws has made this broad pronouncement. Many employers operate under the belief that they are free to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity because Title VII lacks no facial prohibition. As this case illustrates, that belief, no matter how commonly held, might be mistaken.

The EEOC and I disagree on a lot. (See criminal background checks as hiring criteria). Yet, on this issue, we are on the same page. It strikes me as appalling that in the year 2012 there are still minority groups against whom it remains facially legal to discriminate. Already, 21 states prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in employment, 16 of which also prohibit gender identity discrimination; another 140 cities and counties have similar laws. Many companies have also made the private decision to prohibit this type of discrimination in their individual workplaces.

For the uncovered, this EEOC decision signals that the time is coming when this type of discrimination will no longer be an open issue. I suggest you get on the bandwagon now, and send a signal to all of your employees that you are a business of inclusion, not one of bigotry and exclusion.

[Hat tip: The Proactive Employer / Stephanie Thomas]

“Eat Shop Sleep” underscores the importance of proactively addressing wage and hour issues

You might want to pay attention to the Department of Labor’s latest press release.

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division is launching an enforcement and education initiative focused on the restaurant industry in the Los Angeles area to ensure compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act’s minimum wage, overtime, record-keeping and child labor provisions. Under this initiative, the division will be conducting unannounced investigations at [Los Angeles area] restaurants.

What jumps out the most from the press release is the following statistic:

In the past six years, … the division conducted more than 1,800 investigations of restaurants along the West Coast and found that 71 percent were violating the FLSA, resulting in more than $12 million in back wages owed to more than 9,500 employees.

What’s amazing to me is that the percentage of non-compliant employers is only 71 percent. I remain convinced, as I’ve pointed out before, that I can walk into any company and find a wage and hour violation. The FLSA and its regulations are that complex, twisted, and anachronistic.

For this reason, even if you aren’t a restaurant operator in the Los Angeles area, you need to pay attention to, and get out ahead of, these issues. You cannot predict when, why, or who the DOL will audit. What can you do? Take a detailed look at all of your wage and hour practices: employee classifications, meal and rest breaks, off-the-clock issues, and any child workers. Make sure you are 100 percent compliant with all state and federal wage and hour laws. If you are not sure, bring in an attorney who knows these issues to check for you. If you are ever investigated by the DOL or sued in a wage and hour case, it will be the best money your business has ever spent.

[Hat tip: Social Media Employment Law Blog]

As the public policy turns

Last summer, in Alexander v. Cleveland Clinic Foundation, the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals held that a police officer, fired after several outbursts while working traffic control, could proceed to trial with his wrongful discharge claim. He claimed that because his termination jeopardized the state’s public policy in favor of police officers enforcing the law, he should have been able to pursue his public policy wrongful discharge claim.

Three months later, the Ohio Supreme Court decided Dohme v. Eurand America, holding that to support a wrongful discharge claim, a plaintiff must identify the specific federal or state constitutional provisions, statutes, regulations, or common law that support the public policy relied upon.

Following Dohme, the Ohio Supreme Court vacated the appellate court’s decision and set it back to the appellate court for a re-do.

Second verse, same as the first. In Alexander v. Cleveland Clinic Foundation II (4/19/12) [pdf], the same panel of the same appellate court again concluded that Alexander was entitled to proceed to trial on his public policy claim.

Pursuant to Dohme, the court considered whether Alexander had clearly supported his public policy argument with a specific statement of law from the federal or state constitution, statutes, administrative rules and regulations, or common law:

Alexander claimed that public policy dictates that police officers enforce the laws of the state of Ohio; thus, discharging a police officer for enforcing the laws “would jeopardize the public policy of wanting police officers to enforce Ohio laws.” … Alexander cited R.C. 1702.80(D) in support of his public policy argument. The statute … provides that … a qualified nonprofit corporation … police department … “shall preserve the peace, protect persons and property, enforce the laws of the state.” … [H]ere, Alexander cited to “a specific statement of law” that was drawn from R.C. 1702.80(D).

The takeaway for employers—Ohio or otherwise—hasn’t changed since I first reported on Alexander last year:

Public policy wrongful discharge claims often hinge on the combination of two influences: the creativity of the employee’s attorney to pigeonhole the circumstances surrounding the discharge into a specific state or federal constitution, statute or administrative regulation, or in the common law; and the court’s opinion of that particular public policy.

The unpredictability of these claims underscores the need for employers to treat every termination like a potentially litigious event.

WIRTW #222 (the “exhausted” edition)

Federal jury trials are exhausting. Looking forward to getting my life back.

Here’s what I read this week (during my down time, on my iPhone):

Discrimination

• New Theory of Discrimination: “Implicit Bias” — from Stephanie Thomas’s The Proactive Employer Blog
• Wall Street Journal Takes the EEOC to Task on Background Checks — from Nick Fishman’s employeescreenIQ Blog
• EEOC: Employers have no right to ask what prescription drugs employees are on — from Walter Olson’s Overlawyered
• Even a voluntary demotion can lead to a retaliation claim — from Eric Meyer’s The Employer Handbook Blog
• Happy (?) Equal Pay Day! — from Maryland Employment Law Developments
• 4 Things Employers Should Know About the ADAAA — from Workplace Insights
• Can an employer insist on regular attendance without violating the ADA? Maybe. — from Robin Shea’s Employment and Labor Insider
• Inside the Racist Mind — from Time

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• Does a Social Media Policy for Employees Apply to Contractors? — from i-Sight Investigation Software Blog
• Anatomy of an Employee Facebook Password Protection Law — from Phil Miles’s Lawffice Space
• Employers requesting Facebook passwords — from George’s Employment Blawg
• Are Employer Social Networking Accounts Protectable Trade Secrets? — from Trade Secrets and Noncompete Blog
• I Get It: 4 Ways I Can Tell You Don't Like Voice Mail (and what I think about each of them...) — from The HR Capitalist, Kris Dunn
• Is the boss spying on you? Cyber-snooping on rise — from the Palm Beach Post

HR & Employee Relations

• Why Pet Insurance Makes Sense as Part of Your Menu of Employee Benefits — from TLNT
• Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you — from Evil HR Lady, Suzanne Lucas
• Employers Provide Too Little Leave — from Mike Haberman’s Omega HR Solutions
• To Handbook or Not to Handbook — from The Employer's Lawyer
• Employee Handbooks: do’s and dont’s — from Warren & Associates Blog
• Dear Evil Skippy: How Do I Avoid Offending Sensitive Co-Workers? — from Evil Skippy at Work
• Office Romances On The Rise Among Young Employees — from Fox Business

Wage & Hour

• Overtime Lawsuits On The Rise — from Overtime Lawyer Blog
• The Buddha and the Fair Labor Standards Act — from Work Matters
• Keep an Eye Out for Court’s Ruling on Pharmaceutical Sales Rep. Case — from Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog
• Clocking in early: a recipe for bogus overtime claims — from HR Cafe

Labor Relations

• Court Upholds Non-Employee Property Access Rights — from Labor Relations Update
• The NLRB and social media: The next phase and more scrutiny — from John Holmquist’s Michigan Employment Law Connection

The Bachelor as discrimination? Publicity stunt lawsuit undermines legitimate discrimination claims

This week, two African-American men filed what their attorney calls a "landmark civil rights case that will move social justice and economic equality forward." The class action lawsuit, Claybrooks v. American Broadcasting Companies, claims that The Bachelor franchise purposefully discrimination against people of color. You read that last sentence correctly. Apparently, casting some color on The Bachelor will cure all of society's discriminatory ills.

Does The Bachelor skew white? Absolutely. Are their other reality shows that skew black, or latino, or gay? You bet. Do any of them technically "discriminate" in their casting choices? Probably, because they are targeting a certain demographic for their audience. Just like The Bachelor has not cast many African-Americans, it also has not cast any septuagenarians. Why? Because their target audience would not watch, and the show would be taken off the air.

This is not discrimination. It's marketing. It's no different than McDonald's running an advertising campaign with an urban music bed and all all-Black cast.

Publicity stunts like this lawsuit undermine the real plight of African-Americans and other minorities, both in the workplace and society in general. If protected groups want people to take discrimination seriously, and treat it as a serious problem, they need to stop screaming discrimination for things like reality television casting decisions.

I’m syndicated! Announcing my launch on Workforce.com as The Practical Employer

For content, they say that five years is the magic number. For example, after five years, television shows are eligible for syndication. Apparently, the same holds true for employment law blogs, as mine will turn five in a few weeks.

This week, Workforce.com—one of the web’s most distinguished portals for all things human resources (and part of the Crain Communications family)—debuted me as one of its featured bloggers, under the title The Practical Employer.

I’m beyond thrilled, and honored, to join their exclusive club, alongside the likes of Kris Dunn, Ann Bares, and Fistful of Talent.

Thanks to Kris Dunn for introducing (and recommending) me to the Workforce people. Thanks also to the staff at Workforce.com, who’ve been great to work with while they got my micro-site up and running.

Never fear. The Ohio Employer’s Law Blog is not going anywhere. You now just have another way to read my content. Either here, or at Workforce.com, as The Practical Employer.