B
brainfreeze02001
Guest
Are you sure that you know what you are talking about when you state your answers? I only ask this because I have inquired of such before and have also seen numerous other questions asked on the same subject. About 90+% answers stated that it was not against the law to discriminate against convicted felons. After researching I have found this to be in error which I will provide the law below. Make sure before you answer certain questions in this area that you are certain and don't state what you believe is true as a fact. Many people come here joping to find answers to serious concerns, as I was one of them.
FEDERAL LAW LIMITING EMPLOYER USE OF CRIMINAL CONVICTION INFORMATION
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 restricts the state's ability to use criminal convictions in employment decisions (42 USC §2000e-5, et seq.). The Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC), the federal agency that enforces Title VII, has ruled that automatically disqualifying people who have criminal records from jobs is discriminatory because the practice disproportionately affects African American and Hispanic men. (These two groups have much higher criminal conviction rates than do Caucasian men.)
The EEOC has ruled repeatedly that covered employers cannot simply bar felons from jobs, but must show that a conviction-based disqualification is justified by "business necessity." The legal test requires employers to examine (1) the job-relatedness of each conviction, (2) the nature of the crime committed, (3) the number of convictions, (4) the facts surrounding each offense, (5) the length of time between the conviction and the employment decision, (6) the person's employment history before and after the conviction, and (7) the applicant's efforts at rehabilitation. According to the EEOC, the job-relatedness inquiry is the most important, and focuses on whether the job position applied for presents an opportunity for the applicant to engage in the same type of misconduct which resulted in the conviction (Bednar, "Employment Law Dilemmas," 11 Utah Bar J. 15 (Dec. 1998)).
The question in which I had asked was a case where the employer specifically says it is because of the felony, over half a decade after I had been hired with said company, and with no misbehavior that showed concurrence with the felony.
BTW to the person who pointed at me for ranting, this is something worth ranting about. People shouldn't try to give legal advice if they do not really know. People come to this section to be at the very least pointed in the right direction, as I am sure in your ignorance you have probably pointed most in the wrong from your statement.
FEDERAL LAW LIMITING EMPLOYER USE OF CRIMINAL CONVICTION INFORMATION
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 restricts the state's ability to use criminal convictions in employment decisions (42 USC §2000e-5, et seq.). The Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC), the federal agency that enforces Title VII, has ruled that automatically disqualifying people who have criminal records from jobs is discriminatory because the practice disproportionately affects African American and Hispanic men. (These two groups have much higher criminal conviction rates than do Caucasian men.)
The EEOC has ruled repeatedly that covered employers cannot simply bar felons from jobs, but must show that a conviction-based disqualification is justified by "business necessity." The legal test requires employers to examine (1) the job-relatedness of each conviction, (2) the nature of the crime committed, (3) the number of convictions, (4) the facts surrounding each offense, (5) the length of time between the conviction and the employment decision, (6) the person's employment history before and after the conviction, and (7) the applicant's efforts at rehabilitation. According to the EEOC, the job-relatedness inquiry is the most important, and focuses on whether the job position applied for presents an opportunity for the applicant to engage in the same type of misconduct which resulted in the conviction (Bednar, "Employment Law Dilemmas," 11 Utah Bar J. 15 (Dec. 1998)).
The question in which I had asked was a case where the employer specifically says it is because of the felony, over half a decade after I had been hired with said company, and with no misbehavior that showed concurrence with the felony.
BTW to the person who pointed at me for ranting, this is something worth ranting about. People shouldn't try to give legal advice if they do not really know. People come to this section to be at the very least pointed in the right direction, as I am sure in your ignorance you have probably pointed most in the wrong from your statement.