Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Common sense from the bench - oh my !!

Expand Messages
  • suesarkis2001
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 22 11:12 AM
      <
      Judge warns Obama on 'worthless' race complaints
      EEOC claims background checks discriminate against blacks
      A federal judge has described Obama administration claims that
      corporations use background checks to target blacks “worthless,” describing the
      allegations from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as a “theory in
      search of facts” as he granted a motion for summary judgment, which is an
      immediate dismissal of the case.

      “There are simply no facts here to support a theory of disparate impact
      resulting from any identified, specific practice of the defendant,” wrote
      Judge Roger W. Titus in the case brought by the Obama administration against
      Freeman Inc., a company that provides services for expositions, conventions,
      corporate events, meetings and programs.




      Its revenues exceed $1.3 billion annually and it employs 3,500 fulltime
      workers and tens of thousands of part-time workers.



      The EEOC alleged that the company, by checking the backgrounds of
      prospective employees, was illegally discriminating against blacks. But the Obama
      administration failed to provide any evidence of that, the judge ruled.
      “While some specific uses of criminal and credit background checks may be
      discriminatory and violate the provision of Title VII, the EEOC bears the
      burden of supplying reliable expert testimony and statistical analysis that
      demonstrates disparate impact stemming from a specific employment practice
      before a violation can be found …. the EEOC has failed to do so.”
      <P>The emphasis was in the original document from the judge.
      Officials with _Judicial Watch,_ (http://www.judicialwatch.org/) the
      Washington watchdog that seeks out corruption and reports on it, noted the judge
      ’s description of the Obama administration’s case as “laughable,” “
      distorted,” “cherry-picked,” “worthless” and “an egregious example of
      scientific dishonesty.”
      “That kind of whipping from a federal judge has got to hurt though it’s
      unlikely to deter the administration from spending more taxpayer dollars to
      file frivolous lawsuits against employers who use the checks to screen job
      applicants,” the organization reported Wednesday.
      “Of interesting note is that the EEOC conducts criminal background checks
      as a condition of employment and credit background checks for most of its
      positions. For some reason, it’s not discriminatory against minorities when
      the agency does it,” the group reported. “But it is when private businesses
      utilize the tool because information about prior convictions is being used
      to discriminate against a racial or ethnic group, according to the EEOC. ”
      Obama’s EEOC claimed the business “unlawfully relied upon credit and
      criminal background checks that caused a disparate impact against
      African-American, Hispanic, and male job applicants.”
      “To support this absurd argument, the agency presented the court with ‘
      expert’ data, including a detailed statistical analysis, supposedly proving
      its disparate impact claims,” Judicial Watch said.
      But Titus found the government argument “based on unreliable data,” “rife
      with analytical error,” with “a plethora of errors and analytical fallacies
      ” and a “mind-boggling number of errors.”
      Further, it was “completely unreliable,” “so full of material flaws that
      any evidence of disparate impact derived from an analysis of its contents
      must necessarily be disregarded” and “distorted.”
      The judge said, “By bringing actions of this nature, the EEOC has placed
      many employers in the ‘Hobson’s choice’ of ignoring criminal history and
      credit background, thus exposing themselves to potential liability for
      criminal and fraudulent acts committed by employees, on the one hand, or incurring
      the wrath of the EEOC for having utilized information deemed fundamental
      by most employers.”
      The judge noted there are legitimate reasons for background checks.
      “For many employers, conducting a criminal history or credit record
      background check on a potential employee is a rational and legitimate component
      of a reasonable hiring process. The reasons for conducting such checks are
      obvious. Employers have a clear incentive to avoid hiring employees who have
      a proven tendency to defraud or steal from their employers, engage in
      workplace violence, or who otherwise appear to be untrustworthy and unreliable.”
      The Obama administration alleged that the company, by doing background
      checks, had created a “pattern or practice” of “discrimination against
      African-American job applicants by using poor credit history as a hiring
      criterion … and against African-American, Hispanic, and male job applicants by
      using criminal history as a hiring criterion.”
      _The judge went even further, _
      (http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Opinions/EEOC%20v.%20Freeman%20%5b09-2573]%20Memorandum%20Opinion%20and%20Order%208
      .9.13.pdf) blasting the EEOC for making a “mockery” of court standards by
      “continually offering new expert reports … well past the applicable
      deadline.
      In fact, they were “poorly disguised attempts to counter defendant’s
      arguments with new expert analysis.”


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.