Q. We are considering instituting apolicy for all employee positions. We’ve heard scary stories of lawsuits regarding negligent hiring, and we’d really like to avoid that sort of litigation, not to mention the negative media attention. Is there any downside to having an “across the board” criminal policy?
A. The EEOC issued new guidance in spring 2012 on this issue. The short answer is that having a rigid, universal background check policy could open your company up to charges of disparate impact discrimination.
Because arrest and incarceration rates are significantly higher among minority groups, instituting a criminal background check will likely have a disproportionate impact on these job applicants. Such policies are not lawful unless an employer can demonstrate that they are job-related and consistent with business necessity.
The EEOC recommends thatbe tailored on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the specific nature of the job; the nature of the crime; and the time that has elapsed since individual’s conviction or release.
In addition to considering these factors, the EEOC suggests that employers must engage in an individual assessment that permits employees or applicants an opportunity to explain their record and any mitigating circumstances.
Not doing so could have dire consequences. In January 2010, Pepsi paid over $3 million to settle an EEOC claim of disparate impact discrimination.
While criminalare an important part in selecting employees and protecting your clients and staff, be careful in your implementation. You could be so “safe” that you’re ultimately “sorry.”
- How to Fire an Employee the Legal Way: 6 Termination Guidelines
- 'Ban the Box' still a struggle for some Minnesota employers
- Background checks 2.0: What HR professionals need to know now
- Health care employers: Negligent hiring harder to prove
- How should we handle background checks during a merger or acquisition?