IRAC Brief: Dollar General vs.

EEOC

IRAC Case Study LAW 531

IRAC Brief Dollar General vs. EEOC How far can an employer go when it comes to background checks? Are they allowed to use the results as a means of employee termination? These are questions that are not frequently asked, but often should be. Employers may often feel they have a right to invade a potential

IRAC Brief Dollar General vs. EEOC employees personal information solely because that person is seeking a job.

Most states

prohibit an employer from conducting certain background checks on potential and existing employees. Some employers, however, will bend the rules a little in order to seek incriminating information against certain employees. A law suit was filed against Dollar General Corporation and BMW manufacturing plant in South Carolina for conducting illegal criminal background checks on pre-existing employees and potential employees. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed

lawsuits against both companies primarily because the companies seemed to be targeting African American workers and applicants. When a potential employer conducts a background check, laws in most states prohibit the use of certain information in hiring decisions (Findlaw.com, 2013). The Dollar General and BMW were both using the criminal background checks to screen out applicants and terminate certain current employees. Rule According to Cheeseman (2013), title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1963 was enacted to prevent employment discrimination based on race, color, and national origin. In the case of EEOC against Dollar General, EEOC argues that overly broad criminal background checks are discriminatory towards African Americans as they are more likely to have arrest records compared to Caucasian applicants. Dollar General discriminated against applicants without looking into the charges and whether there or not were convictions. Analysis This week we learned about the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or EEOC. The EEOC is the federal administrative agency that is responsible for enforcing most federal

IRAC Brief Dollar General vs. EEOC

antidiscrimination laws (Cheeseman, 2013). This law was put in place to protect applicants who are seeking employment from discrimination. In the case Dollar General v. EEOC one employer and one applicant were discriminated against because of his or her past. The applicant and the employer who was fired by Dollar General were both African Americans. According to the statistics, African Americans have higher arrest and conviction rates than whites. The EEOC filed a lawsuit to compensate the two individuals for their treatment by Dollar General. The EEOC took all the proper steps by first investigating the issues that were brought forward by the two individuals. These lawsuits are something to remind businesses that it is inappropriate to use conviction records to prevent individuals from working. This is not something that the EEOC wanted to do because they first took steps toward resolution through a settlement. The new EEOC guidelines issued last year urge employers to give job applicants a chance to explain past criminal misconduct before they are rejected ("EEOC sues over criminal background checks", 2013). In management, it is vital that all labor laws are followed in order to prevent an organization from unnecessary legal issues. Conclusion The two lawsuits filed against Dollar General Stores places responsibility on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to provide evidence to support stores were using criminal background checks as a discriminatory practice to fire or not hire African Americans. Although the EEOC had notified employers of its updates to guidelines that warn employers not to use overly broad criminal background checks that would limit opportunities for those with past criminal records (CBSNews.com, 2013) the company still has a right to use information from background checks, including criminal background checks as part of its hiring practices.

IRAC Brief Dollar General vs. EEOC

As an employer that is attempting to prevent negligent hiring claims, Dollar Tree Stores has a reasonable defense, however the final judgment will be determined based on the evidence presented by the EEOC. If evidence is proven correct, Dollar Tree is using the criminal background checks unfairly and is therefore in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1963. In a similar and recent case, a judge dismissed the discrimination case on the basis that the EEOC did not show that the company was discriminating on the basis of race by using criminal and credit checks in its hiring practices (Thurm, 2013).

References Background check laws. (2013). Retrieved from http://employment.findlaw.com/hiringprocess/pre-employment-background-check-laws.html CBSNews.com. (2013). EEOC sues over criminal background checks. Retrieved from

IRAC Brief Dollar General vs. EEOC

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/eeoc-sues-over-criminal-background-checks/ Cheeseman, H.R. (2013). Business law: Legal environment, online commerce, business ethics, and international issues (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. EEOC sues over criminal background checks. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/eeoc-sues-over-criminal-background-checks/ Thurm, S. (2013). EEOC Suffers Setback on Use of Criminal-Background Checks in Hiring. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323838204579002892979510718