Will The EEOC Back Off Its Position On Background Checks?

by Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP

In a year filled with controversy, the EEOC outdid itself when it charged two employers with discrimination based on their use of routine criminal background checks.  But now after some well-publicized losses, the EEOC may be forced to back off.

Although the EEOC’s 2012 Guidance Bulletin on criminal background checks does not expressly prohibit them, the EEOC famously took the position that if criminal background checks have a  disparate impact on racial minorities, they cannot be performed except in very limited circumstances.

Of course, other federal laws expressly permit employers to conduct criminal background checks.  And for good reason.  Does the EEOC really maintain that schools, banks or military contractors cannot screen applicants if such tests impact racial minorities disproportionately?

In any event, the EEOC has taken a number of stabs at pursuing disparate impact litigation against employers with criminal background check policies with decidedly mixed results. One “win” for the EEOC occurred in early 2012 when Pepsi paid a $3 million settlement to resolve the agency’s claims that Pepsi’s criminal background policy unfairly weeded out black applicants.

When efforts to resolve similar disparate impact complaints were unsuccessful, the EEOC has taken employers to court.  On June 11, 2013, the EEOC filed two federal lawsuits alleging Title VII disparate impact violations.  The first complaint, pending in South Carolina district court, alleges that BMW’s criminal conviction background check policy disparately impacts black employees and applicants.  The EEOC charges that BMW does not individually assess the nature or seriousness of the criminal offense, how old the conviction is, or the nature of the position at issue in screening candidates.  In the complaint, the agency identifies statistical data showing black employees were denied jobs at a significantly higher rate than non-black employees at BMW’s Spartanburg plant.  In the second lawsuit, filed in Illinois federal court against Dollar General Stores, the EEOC asserts that Dollar’s criminal convictions policy has a disproportionate impact on black applicants, and is not job-related and consistent with business necessity.  Dollar does not automatically disqualify applicants with criminal records, but considers the age and type of the conviction.  Still, the EEOC believes that Dollar’s policy violates Title VII due to the gross disparity in the hiring of black to non-black employees and the absence of a legitimate business reason for its policy.  Both lawsuits are pending.

In response, Attorney Generals from eight states penned a joint letter to the EEOC Commissioners expressing concerns that the EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance and litigation against BMW and Dollar are “quintessential example[s] of gross federal overreach.”  The Attorney Generals opine that the EEOC is unlawfully expanding Title VII to make criminals a protected class.  The EEOC responded to the Attorney Generals that they have misunderstood the Commission’s Guidance to require individualized assessments rather than bright-line screening tests, and individualized assessments of criminal histories are not necessary.

This past summer, the district court of Maryland dismissed the EEOC’s claim against Freeman, a family-owned company, for utilizing a criminal background check that the EEOC believed unfairly impacted African-American males.  Freeman used a multi-step process to evaluate applicants with convictions, including an analysis during the hiring process whether the criminal conduct underlying the reported conviction made the applicant unsuitable for employment.  In a strongly-worded opinion granting summary judgment to the employer, the judge found that the EEOC’s statistical evidence that African-American males were more likely to be rejected as a result of Freeman’s policy to be “unreliable” and based on inaccurate data.  The court called the conclusions of the EEOC’s statistical expert “laughable.”

In another setback for the agency, in an October 7, 2013 ruling, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a lower court’s decision that the EEOC must pay $750,000 in attorney and expert fees and costs to Peoplemark, a temporary staffing agency.  In that case, the EEOC filed a class action lawsuit against Peoplemark alleging a companywide policy of rejecting felon applicants, which had a disparate impact on African-Americans.  The EEOC relied on a statement from Peoplemark’s General Counsel during the EEOC’s investigation that Peoplemark had such a policy.  However, a year after the lawsuit was filed, Peoplemark produced 200,000 pages of documents that clearly showed Peoplemark in fact referred candidates with convictions to placement agencies and that some other class members did not even possess felony convictions.  Peoplemark also formally represented that it did not have a companywide policy as the General Counsel had verbally indicated before the lawsuit was filed.  Since the Sixth Circuit court found that the EEOC unreasonably continued with litigation after learning that Peoplemark did not have an employment practice to flatly reject felony convicts, the agency was responsible for Peoplemark’s attorney and expert fees.

Finally, this month, the state of Texas took a bold step in filing a federal Complaint in which it asks the court to declare that the EEOC is infringing on state sovereign authority in applying the Enforcement Guidance and that Texas government agencies can bar convicted felons from state jobs without adverse action from the EEOC.  Texas also asks the court to find that the EEOC’s April 2012 Enforcement Guidance is unlawful and unenforceable.

Despite the recent legal blows to, and the criticism of, the EEOC’s agenda, the agency is aggressively pursuing administrative complaints and litigation against employers using blanket criminal screening policies that do not provide for an individualized assessment.  The EEOC is taking action even when employers use some type of evaluation process in reviewing applicants with a criminal history.  Thus, questions remain.  Which criminal background policies will the EEOC declare violate Title VII?  Will the agency continue to apply its Enforcement Guidance calling for employers to conduct a targeted screen of criminal records and a subsequent case-by-case analysis of criminal histories before denying employment?  As we watch this issue unfold in the courts and in the administrative arena, private employers should steer clear of blanket policies that automatically bar convicted felons from hire.

Written by:

Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP

Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.