Can employers reject applicants who have a criminal history

I was asked by a reporter once what we could do to protect women in relationships. I had two suggestions. One was that both parties should be required to make a full financial and criminal history disclosure. Second, since people are quite likely to discount anything negative the disclosures reveal, they should have to get letter approving of the relationship from six friends.

A man called me about a family member's boyfriend. I broke the news that the boyfriend had gone to prison for murder. Shot his brother seven times. The gun didn't hold seven shots so he obviously reloaded and kept shooting. The man said, "Wait till she hears this." "Oh, she knows but it doesn't matter. It wasn't his fault, nobody understands, and their love is so great it will conquer all." He called the next day to asked me how I knew.

I'm all for full disclosure. For the government to withhold information citizens need to make decisions is wrong, imo.

TOJ said:

First off, the chance of you getting that is slim to none and slim left town.

That said however, I misspoke. We do not do the checks, ourself. For USA based employees, we give the position requirements to a couple of offshore companies. Those requirements always include extreme honesty and trustworthness. We get a list of folks that meet those requirements. So far, these two companies have not disappointed us.

.

Click to expand...

Ok that's not really what we're talking about on this thread, though.

Company has position open, company discriminates against off-the-street applicant.

Employers shouldn't reject applicants based purely on prejudice. However, they should be able to reject an applicant based on, for example, a determination that he is dangerous. Criminal records sometimes don't fairly represent the personality and propensity of people, but I think there are cases where, for example, you have a guy with three different violent assault incidents. I think it's safe to assume that is not a person you want representing your business, and to reject him on those grounds.

I can't think of an easy way for the government to regulate in this area, so they should probably just leave it alone.

Jerry said:

Ok that's not really what we're talking about on this thread, though.

Company has position open, company discriminates against off-the-street applicant.

Click to expand...

I guess I missed that qualifier somewhere. I thought it was about Can employers reject applicants who have a criminal history and that expanded to include bad credit. :slapme:

.

MaggieD said:

I totally agree. I think discrimination because of a previous felony should be enforced with the same vigor as race/religion/sex. If one's previous crime has nothing to do with the job for which one is being interviewed, I think it's very wrong to discriminate.

Many men and women who've served their time want nothing more than to "go straight." If we are going to go out of our way not to hire felons who've served their time, we might as well just shoot them. I think it's very wrong to discriminate in this way -- and very sad for those who are trying their best to get their lives together.

Click to expand...

"I think it's very wrong to discriminate" - this seems to be the basis for your argument (and everyone's) - Though I may agree with you, my point is, does that matter? This questions isn't a question of should companies discriminate. But rather should it be made illegal for them to discriminate? Two completely different questions. One questions morals, on which we agree partially. The other questions what can be made illegal. Can the government intervene so much that can tell a company why it can't deny somebody work? Regardless of right or wrong, can the government say that every person has the RIGHT to be considered for a job, regardless of gender, race, age and criminal background? Isn't THAT the choice of the company? If no, why not??? Why doesn't the company get to choose that?

fredmertz said:

"I think it's very wrong to discriminate" - this seems to be the basis for your argument (and everyone's) - Though I may agree with you, my point is, does that matter? This questions isn't a question of should companies discriminate. But rather should it be made illegal for them to discriminate? Two completely different questions. One questions morals, on which we agree partially. The other questions what can be made illegal. Can the government intervene so much that can tell a company why it can't deny somebody work? Regardless of right or wrong, can the government say that every person has the RIGHT to be considered for a job, regardless of gender, race, age and criminal background? Isn't THAT the choice of the company? If no, why not??? Why doesn't the company get to choose that?

Click to expand...

I think it should be against the law to discriminate based on gender, race, age, religion, family and felony status. It is in society's best interest to protect certain groups of people. There's nothing sadder than a guy who's served his time and can't find a job. He's paid his debt. Let him feed his family. And himself.

MaggieD said:

I think it should be against the law to discriminate based on gender, race, age, religion, family and felony status. It is in society's best interest to protect certain groups of people. There's nothing sadder than a guy who's served his time and can't find a job. He's paid his debt. Let him feed his family. And himself.

Click to expand...

I agree that it is a sad situation for the person who really is trying to get back on his feet and society should try to help that person.

But I think it is MORE immoral for the government to tell me that I must consider an ex-convict equally to the man who has always been hard working and law-abiding for a job in which I need utmost trust (i.e. balancing my books). Isn't that a decision I, as the owner of my company, should be able to make freely?

When convicted of a misdemeanor or felony, their immediate punishment is jail-time, community service and/or fines. The other consequence is the inevitable judgment people will make for the rest of the ex-convicts life. And it is the right of the people to make such judgments. Can the government really enforce people to not judge other people? Isn't that limiting our freedom to think and act freely?

I found this if anyone is interested...
RECENT EEOC DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING DISQUALIFICATION OF APPLICANTS BASED ON CRIMINAL HISTORY

Furthermore, we would ask the Commission to emphasize the categorical bars on the employment of persons who have been
convicted of serious violent crimes will not violate Title VII as long as the prohibition is demonstrated by the employer to be job related and consistent with business necessity, which I think is consistent with what you’ve heard from others.

Click to expand...

Good ppiece with a lot of information, including details on several legal actiosn in process on this topic.

fredmertz said:

I agree that it is a sad situation for the person who really is trying to get back on his feet and society should try to help that person.

But I think it is MORE immoral for the government to tell me that I must consider an ex-convict equally to the man who has always been hard working and law-abiding for a job in which I need utmost trust (i.e. balancing my books). Isn't that a decision I, as the owner of my company, should be able to make freely?

When convicted of a misdemeanor or felony, their immediate punishment is jail-time, community service and/or fines. The other consequence is the inevitable judgment people will make for the rest of the ex-convicts life. And it is the right of the people to make such judgments. Can the government really enforce people to not judge other people? Isn't that limiting our freedom to think and act freely?

Click to expand...

Well, the government is enforcing people to not judge other people for a variety of criteria already. I'd have to say that our world has become a better place because of it. I think many are missing the point here. "Have you been convicted of a felony?" should, in my opinion, be removed from job applications. In and of itself, I think that is discriminatory. That doesn't mean that a company has to hire a felon. It just means that he/she cannot be excluded from further consideration simply because they answer "yes" to that question. It costs about $15 to check public records through a background check service. If I'm being considered for a roofer job, I just don't think it's relevant that I have a record for passing a bad check.

Again, if we're not going to allow felons who've done their time to reintegrate into society as rehabilitated human beings, we should just shoot them. Hyperbole to the max. Ha!

MaggieD said:

Well, the government is enforcing people to not judge other people for a variety of criteria already. I'd have to say that our world has become a better place because of it. I think many are missing the point here. "Have you been convicted of a felony?" should, in my opinion, be removed from job applications. In and of itself, I think that is discriminatory. That doesn't mean that a company has to hire a felon. It just means that he/she cannot be excluded from further consideration simply because they answer "yes" to that question. It costs about $15 to check public records through a background check service. If I'm being considered for a roofer job, I just don't think it's relevant that I have a record for passing a bad check.

Again, if we're not going to allow felons who've done their time to reintegrate into society as rehabilitated human beings, we should just shoot them. Hyperbole to the max. Ha!

Click to expand...

certainly, as a roofer, I wouldn't not consider an ex-convict for the job because he is an ex-convict. If I'm hiring somebody for payroll who had previously been worked the books of another company, I may want to discriminate against that person for that reason. The government shouldn't be able decide what job applications the "Have you been convicted of a felony?" box should be on and when it shouldn't. The world is better because of the non-discriminatory laws, I agree. But society/individual companies should be able to decide whether or not an ex-felon should be able to apply for a particular job within society. Society should decide if an ex-convict should be able to re-integrate into society. Not the government.

Unfortunately people still must be proteced form the hatred spewed from the mouths of the right-wing, loons of society. They hate blacks, chinese, liberals, abortions supporters, capital punishment oppoesers. they are a sick disgusting racist group. They are the TEA Baggers !

Yukon said:

Unfortunately people still must be proteced form the hatred spewed from the mouths of the right-wing, loons of society. They hate blacks, chinese, liberals, abortions supporters, capital punishment oppoesers. they are a sick disgusting racist group. They are the TEA Baggers !

Click to expand...

Speaking of spewing hatred. I thought that was an impressive display of hatred until I read some of your other posts.

Patrickt said:

Speaking of spewing hatred. I thought that was an impressive display of hatred until I read some of your other posts.

Click to expand...

Three weeks, tops.

Patrick,

I dont post hatred nor do I sink to the use of subtle racist comments. Do not confuse truth and non-PC discussion with hate.

I have been in jail, paid my dept to society, and I consider myself equal to anyone as a result. How dare anyone state I should be denied work becuase of something done years ago.

Yukon said:

I have been in jail, paid my dept to society, and I consider myself equal to anyone as a result. How dare anyone state I should be denied work becuase of something done years ago.

Click to expand...

How dare you tell me that I must consider you as an equal to those who have always abided by the law. How dare you take that choice away from me.

fredmertz said:

How dare you tell me that I must consider you as an equal to those who have always abided by the law. How dare you take that choice away from me.

Click to expand...

you must need oxygen
way up there on that high horse

justabubba said:

one would think that the correction to the mis-interpretation would have been effected by now had there actually been one

and as you are an attorney, i note that you failed to make any semblance of a case to defend your position

that either speaks to the weakness of your position or your legal attributes. establish a defense of your position and let us decide which is the weaker element

Click to expand...

it would be better if you actually had a point to make relevant to the topic rather than trying to pretend you know more about the law than I do

Yukon said:

Unfortunately people still must be proteced form the hatred spewed from the mouths of the right-wing, loons of society. They hate blacks, chinese, liberals, abortions supporters, capital punishment oppoesers. they are a sick disgusting racist group. They are the TEA Baggers !

Click to expand...

Tea Baggers tend to be far left-just as NAMBLA members are. Tea PARTY activists are rightwing for the most part.

you just spew nonsense. are you really a conservative trying to make intelligent liberals look bad by association?

MaggieD said:

I think it should be against the law to discriminate based on gender, race, age, religion, family and felony status. It is in society's best interest to protect certain groups of people. There's nothing sadder than a guy who's served his time and can't find a job. He's paid his debt. Let him feed his family. And himself.

Click to expand...

how do you feel about ex cons being able to own firearms or vote?

this is a roundabout way to address the issue, changing the laws themselves would be a much improved (yet more difficult) option.

justabubba said:

you must need oxygen
way up there on that high horse

Click to expand...

I was just joining Yukon on the high-horse riding when he exlaimed "How dare anyone state I should be denied work becuase of something done years ago." -- so to clarify: this isn't my usual elevation. I like to sink as low as I can.

By discriminating against those of us who have broken the law and unfortunately were caught you are simply forcing us to commit more crime in order to survive. People like this are complicit in the criminal acts committed as a result of their discriminatory practices. As an example Ronald Reagan armed Bin Laden in the 80 so that he could fight the Russinas in Afghanistan. Had Reagan not committed this criminal illegal act the Russians would have undoubtably killed Bin Laden. The death of Bin Laden in the 80's prevented 9/11. By arming Bin Laden Ronald Reagan was and is complicit in 9/11 - he is a murderer, no better than Bin Laden.

Yukon said:

By discriminating against those of us who have broken the law and unfortunately were caught you are simply forcing us to commit more crime in order to survive.

Click to expand...

had that read

discriminating against those of us who have broken the law and now, being unable to obtain honest labor - especially in a down economy - places us in a situation where we are more likely to commit further crime in order to survive.

Click to expand...

then i could have agreed with you

but no one forces anyone to commit a crime. that's on each of us, whether we choose for ourselves to violate the law

and this is simply [simple?] bull ****:

People like this are complicit in the criminal acts committed as a result of their discriminatory practices. As an example Ronald Reagan armed Bin Laden in the 80 so that he could fight the Russinas in Afghanistan. Had Reagan not committed this criminal illegal act the Russians would have undoubtably killed Bin Laden. The death of Bin Laden in the 80's prevented 9/11. By arming Bin Laden Ronald Reagan was and is complicit in 9/11 - he is a murderer, no better than Bin Laden.

Click to expand...

when osama bin forgotten was originally armed, he was a freedom fighter fighting our common enemy. there is no way any of us could have then anticipated that he would later turn against us

sazerac said:

Fine. If blacks have a higher rate of crime than other races I argue that it is the fault of the public education system - the government. There is no doubt in my mind that the educational opportunitiies of blacks and of whites are a million miles apart.

The way to rectify this situation is focus on the education of our young blacks rather than force busineses to hire those the government failed to educate. I do think New Orleans is a very good city to look at to consider the overall problem.

Click to expand...

I don't know where to begin a response here...

First off, the public education system moreso at the state and local levels than at the federal level has manipulated the "system" for years in favor for people of one particular race over another. Redistricting, for example, isn't just about state and federal politics. It's also about segmentation (which is the new "segregation"). This is a concept that still baffles alot of people, but simply put if you can change the school district lines to be favorable for a particular school system, you can exclude certain people (or schools entirely) thereby taking financing from one area and giving it to another. It happens all the time all across America. Sometimes, it's the right thing to do because you do have poor economic districts riddled with crime and low housing/property rates and schools that under-perform. But then there are those situations where the school is doing well but for one reason or another enrollment falls off, perhaps because residents have just gotten older and the number of children in a particular area has declined. That's the situation in my neighborhood right now. Crime is low as is home vacancies, yet the residents in my community are just getting older. Their kids are now grown and have moved on but their parents remain. So, enrollment falls off and the school system feels it has to redraw district lines to shift children from one school district to the next. Has nothing to do with under-performing schools or crime.

Now, to your issue of crime -vs- education, again the education system has nothing to do with that. It's not a teacher's job to teach good moral behavior. That's on the parents! But you are correct; the education opportunities among the races is vastly different and that's brought on moreso by family economic circumstances and/or minorities not being well (enough) informed of their education opportunities or, to be more specific, knowing that there are other ways one can go to college besides sports. Unfortunately, that route to higher education, fame and economic prosperity is STILL being pushed onto more blacks than whites in many areas around the country. But to blame the education system for crime is ridiculous!!!

People have to believe there's more to life than what they see right outside their door. If the only thing (poor) people see is crime and they rarely, if ever, are shown another way to live, can you expect them to every do better for themselves or society? And what if society abandons them, just writes their neighborhood off as being hopeless or manipulated things to such a degree that minorities where fighting an uphill battle for prosperity from the start?

These are the kinds of things I wrote about in a thread that's in the Off Topic forum on racism that people simply refuse to acknowledge happens even today. It's shameful. We as a nation can do better.