As I do most
mornings I was watching Good Morning America and across the bottom of the
screen in their news scroll was an item which stated that Target had announced
that they were removing from their employment application all questions
pertaining to criminal records or offenses. Which poses the question above—is
this a sign of the times or a bad move?
There is much
that can be said for either response. In a letter dated August 29, 2013 the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in a response to a request to
reconsider their April 2012 policy statement titled Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment decisions
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, stated that there was the
potential for disparate treatment under Title VII because of the tendency for
certain demographic criteria being more inclined to be subject to criminal
records than others. The EEOC never said
that it was illegal to ask questions regarding criminal background checks; it
only said that the use of them should be carefully analyzed to insure that you
are not eliminating good candidates solely on the existence of a criminal
record. Consider this as an example.
In order to
keep the privacy of the parties in tact in will not name the parties, but there
is a case in this country of an individual who had sexual relations with his
girlfriend who was 15 when he was 17. He has been labeled as a Sexual Predator
and a convicted felon. Would you look at his application for employment and
immediately rule him out? Also on the news this morning was the case of a man
released from prison on a murder charge, which DNA proved he never committed 20
years after the fact? Would you rule him out for possible employment?
Do not take
the tone of this post incorrectly. I firmly believe that there is a proper time
and place for criminal background checks. In another life, while working for an
international security agency I completed background checks for a national
media organization. If you are dealing with a position that entails access to
huge sums of money, do them. If you are dealing with issues that affect
national security, do them. If you are going to be working with the vulnerable
parts of our society (children and elderly) do them. But if you dealing with a
rank and file employee be darn sure that you can justify their use.
This brings us to
the question at hand. Target has said they are going to remove the questions
pertaining to criminal records from their employment application. In a post on
ThinkProgress.org (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/10/29/2851711/target-employment-offenders/) Target stated that starting at the beginning of next year, Target
will wait until making a provisional job offer before inquiring about a
prospective employee’s criminal record, giving candidates the chance to make
their case before an employer passes judgment. The company’s decision comes
just a few months after Minnesota — where Target is headquartered — approved a
“Ban the Box” statute.
“The Box”
can be one of the main barriers of re-entry for people with a criminal past.
When an employer sees that box checked, it can be an automatic disqualifier.
And the practice is so widespread that it can really hurt the chances for
employment for ex-offenders. Surveys show that between 60 and 75 percent of people with a criminal past
can’t find a job for up to a year after they’ve been released.
Employment
discrimination along these lines can also contribute to higher recidivism
rates; when former inmates can’t find a job, they might feel that illegal
activities — say drug dealing or theft — are their only inroad toward having
money to live.
Does your organization use
blanket criminal question son the application? Does a positive response
automatically generate a denial of employment? Can you justify that policy?
Would love to hear from you on your thoughts.
No comments:
Post a Comment