Posted on 08/16/2013 10:00:20 AM PDT by jazusamo
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 that screen criminal background records claiming that the checks disproportionately exclude blacks from hire.
That violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, according to the Obama administration, which has pushed hard to deter companies from using criminal background checks to screen job applicants. Of interesting note is that the EEOC conducts criminal background checks as a condition of employment and credit background checks for most of its positions. For some reason, it’s not discriminatory against minorities when the agency does it.
But it is when private businesses utilize the tool because information about prior convictions is being used to discriminate against a racial or ethnic group, according to the EEOC. Thus, the alleged violation of civil rights laws. The argument is laughable, but a federal judge hearing one of the government’s many background-check discrimination cases in Maryland wasn’t amused.
The case involves a family-owned company (Freeman Inc.) that provides services for corporate events, conventions and exhibits. The business has 3,500 full-time and 25,000 part-time and seasonal workers throughout the U.S. Like many companies, Freeman has been a victim of embezzlement, theft, drug use and workplace violence by employees. Background checks on job applicants are essential to better evaluate candidates’ trustworthiness and reliability, according to court documents.
Obama’s EEOC claims the business “unlawfully relied upon credit and criminal background checks that caused a disparate impact against African-American, Hispanic, and male job applicants.” To support this absurd argument, the agency presented the court with “expert” data, including a detailed statistical analysis, supposedly proving its disparate impact claims.
In a scathing 34-page opinion published this week, U.S. District Court Judge Roger Titus lambasted the administration’s expert data, writing that it was “laughable”; “based on unreliable data”; “rife with analytical error”; containing “a plethora of errors and analytical fallacies” and a “mind-boggling number of errors”; “completely unreliable”; “so full of material flaws that any evidence of disparate impact derived from an analysis of its contents must necessarily be disregarded”; “distorted”; “both over and under inclusive”; “cherry-picked”; “worthless”; and “an egregious example of scientific dishonesty.”
There are simply no facts to support a theory of disparate impact, the judge writes, further stating: “By bringing actions of this nature, the EEOC has placed many employers in the “Hobson’s choice” of ignoring criminal history and credit background, thus exposing themselves to potential liability for criminal and fraudulent acts committed by employees, on the one hand, or incurring the wrath of the EEOC for having utilized information deemed fundamental by most employers.”
Good. I hope the guy has protection.
I don’t think they should show what you were CHARGED with and not found guilty. You should have a theft charge because your batpoop crazy old neighbor lady in convinced you stole her begonias or whatever.
That is the whole purpose of the background checks, to eliminate candidates who have a history of criminal behavior. That is the proper kind of discrimination.
You really think obama-holder will even blink in response to this in their perusal of the Establishment of Annointed Decrees?
No I don’t, both the turkey’s are good at ignoring the rule of law and doing exactly as they please.
So...According to O’Bambi and Co...
Background checks for employment don’t work and are discriminatory?
But...Background checks to exercise 2nd Amendment rights DO work and aren’t?
Hmmmm?
Maybe if criminals stopped committing crimes they wouldn’t lose out on jobs because of a criminal history.
Crazy idea I admit.
“”Background checks for employment don’t work and are discriminatory?
But...Background checks to exercise 2nd Amendment rights DO work and aren’t?””
Great point!!
Amen to that. It’s also ironic the EEOC conducts background checks, Obama wants it his way or no way.
Whoa, surprising clarity from the Federal bench.
Go home Inspector Javert, your drunk!
It would appear that Kevin R. Murphy is no expert; if he is an employee of the EEOC he should be fired, if a contractor he should be sued to recover any monies paid. And defense attorneys everywhere should take another look at any cases involving his “expert” testimony.
It looks like Murphy is a paid “hitman” for the EEOC and this judge isn’t the first to blast him.
excerpt:
Id. at 2. Turning to the specific case before him, Judge Titus focused on whether the EEOC provided the requisite evidentiary foundation that Freeman’s policies had a disparate impact based on reliable and accurate statistical analysis. Judge Titus held that the EEOC had not made such a showing and spent a majority of his 32-page ruling bashing the “expert” reports prepared by Dr. Kevin R. Murphy, the EEOC’s statistical expert. This is not the first time a U.S. District Court Judge has criticized the EEOC’s reliance on Dr. Murphy’s statistical analysis. As previously reported here, Judge Patricia A. Gaughan of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted summary judgment to the defense in EEOC v. Kaplan Higher Education Corp. (discussed here) – in part based on the “great concern” she had regarding several aspects of Dr. Murphy’s disparate impact analysis in that case.
No, really judge, how do you feel about this?
LOL! He didn’t leave much to the imagination, did he?
Bookmark
I find this case both fascinating and troubling. The judge was magnificent but in reality it was dismissed due to prosecutorial incompetence rather than on the merits. I would still want to see a good case - if that were possible - to go before this particular judge.
I hope this was “loser pays” and the defendant’s legal bills were paid by the gubermint (sorry taxpayers but it was warranted, this was done in your name).
The incompetence and thinly veiled racism (perhaps even overt) on the part of the EEOC should make one angry. Can you imagine the collective salaries of all those involved? And how many smaller firms without the wherewithal to fight back have been ground under the gubermint’s boot?
I wonder what the race pimps will have to say about this case? Or will they quietly let the embarrassment fade away? The thing is, if they were TRULY interested in the Advancement of Colored People, they would stop slapping down the race card and deal with the societal problems that result in disproportionate incarceration rates and low credit scores.
Remember all the hope and change that went along with Obama’s 08 election? the first “post-racial” president. Will historians write about the opportunity lost? That will be a huge knock against his presidency.
And how many smaller firms without the wherewithal to fight back have been ground under the gubermint’s boot?
That's one of the most egregious things about the Obama/Holder DOJ, they have unlimited taxpayer funds for these lawsuits and know full well most of those they sue don't have the funds to fight it.
The two have played the race card from the beginning with Holder and the New Black Panther voter intimidation case. Now they're suing companies regarding criminal background checks because minorities are supposedly unfairly affected.
In my view Obama and his lap dog Holder will go down as the most discriminatory and worst president and attorney general in history, bar none.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.