A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

Obama’s EEOC: We’ll Sue You


Posted: Feb 16, 2013

The Obama administration’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says it should be a federal crime to refuse to hire ex-convicts — and threatens to sue businesses that don’t employ criminals. In April the EEOC unveiled its “Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records,” which declares that “criminal record exclusions have a disparate impact based on race and national origin.” The impetus for this “guidance” is that black men are nearly seven times more likely than white men to serve time in prison, and therefore refusals to hire convicts disproportionally impact blacks, according to a Wall Street Journal opinion piece by James Bovard, a libertarian author and lecturer whose books include “Freedom in Chains: The Rise of the State and the Demise of the Citizen.” Latest: Should ObamaCare Be Repealed? Vote in Urgent National Poll Most businesses perform background checks on potential employees, but the EEOC frowns on these checks and “creates legal tripwires that could spark federal lawsuits,” Bovard observes. An EEOC commissioner who opposed the new policy, Constance Baker, said in April that the new guidelines will scare businesses from conducting background checks. Reason: If a check does disclose a criminal offense, the EEOC expects a firm to do an “individual assessment” that will have to prove that the company has a “business necessity” not to hire the ex-convict. If the firm does not do the intricate assessment, it could be found guilty of “race discrimination” if it hires a law-abiding applicant over one with convictions. Bovard points out that the “biggest bombshell” in the new guidelines is that businesses complying with state or local laws requiring background checks can still be sued by the EEOC. That came to light when the EEOC took action against G4S Secure Solutions, which provides guards for nuclear power plants and other sensitive sites, for refusing to hire a twice-convicted thief as a security guard — even though Pennsylvania state law forbids hiring people with felony convictions as security officers. Bovard quotes Todd McCracken of the National Small Business Association: “State and federal courts will allow potentially devastating tort lawsuits against businesses that hire felons who commit crimes at the workplace or in customers’ homes. Yet the EEOC is threatening to launch lawsuits if they do not hire those same felons.” Bovard concludes: “Americans can treat ex-offenders humanely without giving them legal advantages over similar individuals without criminal records.” Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/eeoc-federal-crime-convicts/2013/02/15/id/490605?promo_code=12791-1&s=al#ixzz2L7A19KG1 Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!;

History of the EEOC - SINCE 1965 - Fairminded

[ In Reply To ..]
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/history/index.html

Correct me if I am incorrect but this is a government agency in operation through many administrations dating back to 1965.

First paragraph from the history page of the site: Throughout its existence, the Commission has focused on but one simply stated mission: the elimination of illegal discrimination from the workplace. To accomplish that goal, various approaches some dictated by statutory limitations and some by philosophical and managerial considerations have been employed. This publication will address in particular how three influences explain many of the decisions affecting how the Commission accomplishes its mission.

Come on! It's the EEOC. It's supposed to enforce the law. - You've benefited tremendously from it over

[ In Reply To ..]
the years. Or perhaps you don't realize just how badly women were victimized by discrimination. BTW? It's not gone. We're living through mean times, the bad guys are alive and well, eager to exploit, and we need all the help we can get.

Did you read the article? - ?

[ In Reply To ..]
Just wondering, because you seem angry at poster for an unjustified reason.

OP posted slanted propaganda from a right wing - rag. Yes, I'm mad at her for that, also

[ In Reply To ..]
possibly even believing it herself--or for cynically posting it while not believing it at all, BUT above all for resenting society's attempts to help people with criminal records move on to lead stable, productive lives.

What on earth would make someone think this is not a right and sensible thing to do?
Do you get mad at any poster - who disagrees with you
[ In Reply To ..]
or who uses a source you disappove of? Incredible. There's anger management help available.
What did the article say that is wrong? - wondering....
[ In Reply To ..]
??
You have control issues... - nm
[ In Reply To ..]
.
Honesty issues. I've said a bunch of times--there are - honest and responsible conservative arguments.nm
[ In Reply To ..]
x

You could work for Fox... - Fairminded

[ In Reply To ..]
Just sayin'

This reminds me of the fed govt - requiring banks to loan $$$

[ In Reply To ..]
to people who couldn't afford to pay them back, or else get sued. Fed. govt. is invasive and puts its nose where it doesn't belong.

Banks were throwing their money - Fanatical Hypocrite

[ In Reply To ..]
down every pit they could in the 90's and 00's. An acquaintance got a house loan while he was unemployed and the government didn't make them do it. The government didn't need to tell banks to gamble. They did anyway, which admittedly didn't help, but the main problem that started the entire crisis was a lack of regulation. No one saying "Hey, you're a bank, shouldn't you have money?" or "Why are you donating money to Iran, Al-Qaeda and Mexican drug cartels again?" Also, 99% of the time trouble with the government can be linked right back to corporations through lobbyists. A lot of these weird government housing deals had serious backing by the banks and major private authorities in U.S. domestic and international economics.

The government does indeed put its nose where it doesn't belong. Typically in the pocket book of the very corporations that seek to strip away our basic rights. However, the government is just a pawn in their game, so I track it back to where the money came from and who planted the original idea.

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public."
-Adam Smith

As for the original post and article, no one likes hiring criminals. No one likes working with criminals. No one generally wants to be around criminals. But unless we institute life sentences or death penalty for all crimes we will have ex-cons on the streets. If we don't give them jobs, it might be too much to ask that they just go quietly into the night and die. So, if we have any chance at preventing future crimes, we must give them the means with which to support themselves that does not involve government benefits for committing a criminal act.

On the other hand, it gives me the willies, so I'm not sure how I feel about making it mandatory or facing lawsuits. Lots of room for abuse by criminals towards potential employers. A tough situation all the way around. Either way, looking out for all forms of the discriminated or disenfranchised is the EEOC's job, so whether or not this becomes a law or is the right move for all of us, it's what they were designed to do and it's to help the people they represent. All organizations like the EEOC, AARP, NAACP, ACLU, PETA, etc. have noble goals, but they can get carried away. It's like great white sharks. They're designed to eat seals and are an important part of the food chain or you'd be fighting a seal for a spot on the beach every time. However, every now and then a great white will mistake a particularly pinnipedic appearing surfer for dinner. It's not the shark's fault. Just doing it's job.

For sure. The bankers knew the high-risk - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
loans were not a good idea, but to stay FIDC insured, their hands were tied. The govt. was dictating how their business should be run. The banks have probably said "I told you" many times over by now, and they would be justified in doing so.

this has nothing whatsoever to do with the FDIC - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
the banks were in pig heaven with the high-risk loans. Their hands were not tied by the FDIC. What on earth are you talking about?
Dodd-Franks culprit - as per your request
[ In Reply To ..]
Maybe this will help.

http://legalnewsline.com/in-the-spotlight/239140-new-dodd-frank-home-loan-rules-require-banks-to-retain-risk
Dodd-Frank was enacted in 2010. - SM
[ In Reply To ..]
"For some of my Republican colleagues, the truth has never gotten in the way of bold pronouncements that ignore the fact that the collapse of our economy actually preceded the Dodd-Frank financial reforms by two years."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72767.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act
bursting of housing bubble from Dodd-Frank - is only a piece
[ In Reply To ..]
of the collapse of the whole economy.
PRECEDED: intransitive verb : to go or come before - http://www.merriam-webster.com
[ In Reply To ..]
What years do you think the housing bubble burst? You're definitely missing the point. Dodd-Frank had NOTHING to do with the bursting of the housing bubble since it came AFTER that had already occurred.
what does that have to do with the FDIC? - sm
[ In Reply To ..]
How do NEW home loan rules have anything to do with the PRIOR high-risk mortgage debacle?

I guess the answer to your question would be: No. That did not help.

Similar Messages:


EEOC Tells Employers To Investigate Employees Who Wear Aug 05, 2016
You know that government can’t restrict your speech. Officially. But they can in all kinds of practical ways, just as they can do lots of other things to you without ever really taking an official action against you. Take the famous “Don’t Tread On Me” cap. Congress will never pass a law that says you can’t wear that cap, just because politicians may not like what the cap stands for. Constitutionally, Congress cannot do so. But if you think that means the government can’t come do ...

Two In ‘Republican Women For Obama’ Ad...Aug 26, 2012
...exposed as Democrats. http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/25/two-in-republican-women-for-obama-ad-exposed-as-democrats/ ...

CBS Says: Obama’s Security BreachSep 18, 2012
In Libya Is Ignored By American Media. Some things you can't cover up. http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/09/17/obamas-security-breach-in-libya-is-ignored-by-american-media/ ...

Al Sharpton Is Obama’s Whipping BoyJan 01, 2015
As more and more racially-motivated attacks against police and private citizens are occurring as a result of the recent and unfortunate deaths of two black men at the hands of police, the blame for all of this racial division needs to be squarely placed on the laps of President Obama and race-baiters like Rev. Al Sharpton. Let’s be very clear. This so-called “man of God” Rev. Al Sharpton is nothing more than President Obama’s whipping boy, who does the president’ ...

If You Think President Obama’s Administration Has Unraveled,Jul 22, 2014
I still have hope. ...

Taxpayer Bill For Obama’s Hawaii Vacations:Jan 04, 2013
Michelle Obama recently revealed that she and President Obama don’t give Christmas gifts to each other. They merely say, “We’re in Hawaii,” and that’s Christmas gift enough. BUT ACTUALLY THE PRESENT IS FROM TAXPAYERS, AND IT'S AN EXPENSIVE ONE. The total cost to taxpayers of Obama’s vacations to Hawaii since becoming president is likely in excess of $20 million, and possibly much, much more. During a time of budget deficits that threaten the nation’s security and its f ...

CNN Poll: 67% Oppose Obama’s Executive AgendaJan 30, 2014
A CNN/ORC poll of viewers who watched the last State of the Union address found that 67% oppose Barack Obama’s plan to pursue his political agenda via executive orders.During his speech last night, Obama unveiled a raft of executive orders and also promised to enact gun control measures “with or without Congress.”However, viewers reacted negatively to Obama’s plan to bypass lawmakers. They were asked, “In general, would you rather see Barack Obama attempt to re ...

Obama’s Secret Terrorist-Tracking SystemAug 28, 2014
Excerpt: • The top five U.S. cities represented on the main watchlist for “known or suspected terrorists” are New York; Dearborn, Mich.; Houston; San Diego; and Chicago. At 96,000 residents, Dearborn is much smaller than the other cities in the top five, suggesting that its significant Muslim population—40 percent of its population is of Arab descent, according to the U.S. Census Bureau—has been disproportionately targeted for watchlisting. Residents and civil ...

Convincing Case Against Barack Obama’s PresidencyFeb 25, 2015
This will probably be taken down and/or flamed because of the anti-Christian rhetoric coming from the left, but for as long as it stays up, maybe some good can come of it somewhere.   Reuters by Michael Patrick Leahy25 Feb 201532 Christian evangelist Franklin Graham is making the case against Barack Obama’s presidency better than any politician has. Last week, Rudy Giuliani landed a glancing blow when he said he didn’t think President Obama really loves America. Tuesday, ...

Inside Obama’s Secret Outreach To RussiaMay 29, 2017
It's good to be one Barack Hussain Obama. ...

President Obama’s Approval Rating Falls To New Low: PollApr 29, 2014
What strikes me is this. Why doesn't he just listen to the people? "Most of the dissatisfaction appeared to stem from three topics: the economy, the ongoing crisis in Ukraine and the President's signature health care law." Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/president-obama-approval-rating-falls-new-poll-article-1.1772756#ixzz30JU4hDY3 ...

Congressman Apologizes For Criticizing Michelle Obama’s ‘large Posterior’Dec 23, 2011
Congressman apologizes for criticizing Michelle Obama’s ‘large posterior’ By Holly Baile Senior Political Reporter (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images) A Republican congressman from Wisconsin has offered a personal apology to First Lady Michelle Obama after he was overheard at an airport lounge criticizing her "large posterior." Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner was overheard loudly complaining on the phone in the Delta Lounge at Reagan National Airport outside Washington about Obam ...

Analysis Of Key Points From Obama’s Speech On Drones By MARK MAZZETTIMay 23, 2013
I am not going to comment on this because I didn't hear his speech. I am just giving a link to the above article which has a video of his speech and other commentary, plus graphs. ...

Frenemies: Spying On Allies Fits Obama’s Standoffish ProfileOct 24, 2013
that the security agencies under US President Barack Obama have reportedly been monitoring close allies like German Chancellor Angela Merkel. He has failed to foster close relationships with other heads of state, causing much frustration around the world. US President Barack Obama was scheduled to visit the Church of Our Lady cathedral in Dresden during a June 2009 whistle-stop visit to Germany. Diplomats from the German Foreign Ministry had painstakingly planned every last detail. They were ...

During Obama’s Speech At Democratic Campaign Rally, Crowd Does Something ‘Weird’Oct 20, 2014
EXCERPT: "During President Barack Obama’s speech at a Maryland Democratic campaign rally Sunday, crowd members departed while he spoke — an action that “underscored his continuing unpopularity,” Reuters reported. ...

Islamist Threat Overshadows Obama’s Domestic Sales PitchJan 15, 2015
Gee, I wonder if there is a Plan B??? ...

Obama’s Plan For Keeping Ebola Out Of The U.S.: Monitoring By Flight Attendants And Border OfficiaOct 02, 2014
The stupidity and ineptitude of this cretin "president" is appalling. ...

Obama’s America Better For Wall Street Than Main Street, Stats ShowJan 05, 2015
Well, some of us saw this coming... ...