Federal Judge Calls Obama Admin’s Claim Background Checks By Employers Are Racist “La

[Jeff]

Obama claims that criminal background checks are racist , so what does that tell you about his personal views? And I guess that answers the question what non violent drug dealers he would like to see set free from jail, this guy just keeps showing more and more everyday what a RACIST he is.

The Obama administration’s claim that criminal background checks discriminate against minority job applicants suffered a lashing from a federal court that found the allegations “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. Judicial Watch wrote about this a few weeks ago when the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency that enforces the nation’s workplace discrimination laws, sued two large companies (http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2013/06/feds-sue-cos-because-criminal-checks-eliminate-too-many-blacks/)that screen criminal background records claiming that the checks disproportionately exclude blacks from hire.

http://weaselzippers.us/2013/08/22/federal-judge-calls-obama-admins-claim-background-checks-by-employers-are-racist-laughable-worthless/

[Little-Acorn]

Looks like the Federal government (Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, or EEOC) tried to sue a company for using criminal background checks when hiring new employees.

The EEOC tried to tell the judge that criminal background checks discriminated unfairly against blacks, since blacks committed more crimes than whites.

Yes, really.

The judge threw the case out, saying the EEOC had completely failed to prove ANY racial discrimination.

And he ripped to shreds a report the EEOC tried to give him. Check out what he said in the last paragraph quoted here.

It's nice to find a ray of sunshine and sanity amidst all the BS the race-baiting industry keeps slinging around.

------------------------------------------------

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324747104579022983043566454.html#a rticleTabs%3Darticle

Jason Riley: Jobless Blacks Should Cheer Background Checks
Research suggests that employers who use them are less likely to racially discriminate.

by JASON L. RILEY
August 22, 2013, 7:14 p.m. ET

The Obama administration took one on the chin earlier this month when a federal court ruled that companies may use criminal-background checks in hiring without being guilty of racial discrimination. Employers are thrilled about the decision, obviously. Less obvious is that the black unemployed, whose numbers have swelled under President Obama, also have reason to cheer.

The case dates to 2009, when the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Freeman Co., an event management firm. The EEOC alleged that the company's criminal-background checks for job applicants discriminated against blacks, who in general are more likely than other groups to have criminal histories.

Judge Roger Titus of the U.S. District Court in Maryland disagreed. In his Aug. 9 ruling, he said that checking a person's criminal history is "a legitimate component of a reasonable hiring process." 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 meat of the ruling, however, is the court's blistering takedown of the government's "expert" report, authored by an outside statistician who attempted to establish that Freeman's criminal-background checks disproportionately harmed black job-seekers. Judge Titus described the report as "an egregious example of scientific dishonesty," its analysis "laughable," "skewed" and full of "cherry-picked data." He concluded that the "mind-boggling-number of errors" rendered the EEOC's "disparate impact conclusions worthless." There are "simply no facts here to support a theory of disparate impact resulting from any identified, specific practice."

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?42516-Judge-to-Obama-on-worthless-race-complaints&p=659644#post659644

[Little-Acorn]

And the funniest part?

The company the EEOC was suing, never checked an applicant's criminal background, until AFTER offering him a job!

Their job application forms had the usual questions about "Have you ever been convicted of a crime? If yes, please explain," etc. that every company has. If a guy wrote down that he had been convicted of stealing a car ten years ago or whatever, they would still offer him a job, although obviously less often than if his record was clean.

But the only time the results from a criminal background check were ever actually USED, was if they found out he had LIED on his application to them, like claiming only a minor drug offense or something, and then they find out he had been convicted of rape.


http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/258658/Discrimination+Disability+Sexual+Harassment/Court+Slams+EEOC+on+Background+Check+Lawsuit

Freeman utilized a nuanced, multi-level background check program based upon the position for which the applicant was applying. The company only ran a background check after it made an offer of employment, and it considered the results of background checks on a detailed, case-by-case basis. Indeed, the court noted that one of the few "bright-line" rules Freeman had for disqualifying an applicant was whether the applicant had lied on his/her application about criminal history; otherwise, the company looked at the timing and disposition of any criminal proceedings, as well as the relationship of the crime to the job for which the applicant was applying.

This company never used criminal background checks, to check for crimes.

They used them only to see if the applicant was lying to their faces.

And only AFTER offering him the job. There was no way their use of criminal background checks, could possibly be "racially discriminatory".

[aboutime]

Looks like the Federal government (Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, or EEOC) tried to sue a company for using criminal background checks when hiring new employees.

The EEOC tried to tell the judge that criminal background checks discriminated unfairly against blacks, since blacks committed more crimes than whites.

Yes, really.

The judge threw the case out, saying the EEOC had completely failed to prove ANY racial discrimination.

And he ripped to shreds a report the EEOC tried to give him. Check out what he said in the last paragraph quoted here.

It's nice to find a ray of sunshine and sanity amidst all the BS the race-baiting industry keeps slinging around.

------------------------------------------------

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324747104579022983043566454.html#a rticleTabs%3Darticle

Jason Riley: Jobless Blacks Should Cheer Background Checks
Research suggests that employers who use them are less likely to racially discriminate.

by JASON L. RILEY
August 22, 2013, 7:14 p.m. ET

The Obama administration took one on the chin earlier this month when a federal court ruled that companies may use criminal-background checks in hiring without being guilty of racial discrimination. Employers are thrilled about the decision, obviously. Less obvious is that the black unemployed, whose numbers have swelled under President Obama, also have reason to cheer.

The case dates to 2009, when the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Freeman Co., an event management firm. The EEOC alleged that the company's criminal-background checks for job applicants discriminated against blacks, who in general are more likely than other groups to have criminal histories.

Judge Roger Titus of the U.S. District Court in Maryland disagreed. In his Aug. 9 ruling, he said that checking a person's criminal history is "a legitimate component of a reasonable hiring process." 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 meat of the ruling, however, is the court's blistering takedown of the government's "expert" report, authored by an outside statistician who attempted to establish that Freeman's criminal-background checks disproportionately harmed black job-seekers. Judge Titus described the report as "an egregious example of scientific dishonesty," its analysis "laughable," "skewed" and full of "cherry-picked data." He concluded that the "mind-boggling-number of errors" rendered the EEOC's "disparate impact conclusions worthless." There are "simply no facts here to support a theory of disparate impact resulting from any identified, specific practice."




Gee whiz! Oh, my. Imagine if the Lame Stream Press had actually checked on Obama's background...honestly, and effectively enough BEFORE the last two elections????

The EEOC is now under the direction of the OBAMA administration. No wonder Americans can't get any HONEST ANSWERS to questions about the backgrounds of Politicians who are dedicated to Destroying America????

[Marcus Aurelius]

And the funniest part?

The company the EEOC was suing, never checked an applicant's criminal background, until AFTER offering him a job!

Their job application forms had the usual questions about "Have you ever been convicted of a crime? If yes, please explain," etc. that every company has. If a guy wrote down that he had been convicted of stealing a car ten years ago or whatever, they would still offer him a job, although obviously less often than if his record was clean.

But the only time the results from a criminal background check were ever actually USED, was if they found out he had LIED on his application to them, like claiming only a minor drug offense or something, and then they find out he had been convicted of rape.



This company never used criminal background checks, to check for crimes.

They used them only to see if the applicant was lying to their faces.

And only AFTER offering him the job. There was no way their use of criminal background checks, could possibly be "racially discriminatory".

I disagree.

The funniest part is that the EEOC uses background checks prior to offering anyone a job, yet they claim that is not discriminatory.... it's only discriminatory when someone else does it.

To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin...


It's never discrimination when background checks are done in the 1st person, such as 'our background checks'. It's only when they are done in the third person, such as 'their background checks', that they become discriminatory.

[aboutime]

I disagree.

The funniest part is that the EEOC uses background checks prior to offering anyone a job, yet they claim that is not discriminatory.... it's only discriminatory when someone else does it.



But, Marcus. We're not supposed to know about that, or mention it. Because it really makes Obama and the EEOC look like Racists!