Posted on 05/01/2024 3:49:31 AM PDT by MtnClimber
For more than a half century the federal government has enacted countless laws and issued thousands of administrative decrees to promote racial equality. Central to this quest has been the doctrine of “disparate impact” (based on Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act) that holds that any job requirement a business of at least 15 employees has that disproportionately harms blacks, might be punishable as racial discrimination. In the landmark case of Griggs (1971) for example, the Supreme Court held that requiring all applicants for a power company lineman job to have a high school degree was racially discriminatory since blacks were less likely to graduate high school. Crucially, the burden of proof was on the employer to demonstrate that the requirement producing the disparity was essential for the job, a difficult hurdle to overcome.
Nevertheless, despite decades of this and similar measure, progress has been slow, if at all, yet Washington remains steadfast in forcing businesses to hire blacks, even if businesses resist. Tellingly, there is no pretense that this compulsion helps business, and one might be reminded of parents forcing junior to eat his vegetables or else.
The latest example of enforcing disparate impact involves Sheetz, a chain of 700 stores with 23,000 employees that features fast food and snacks in six states. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaint, this privately owned firm discriminates against blacks by automatically rejecting job applicants having criminal records. The EEOC alleges that it is discriminatory since blacks comprised 14.5% of those rejected for this reason versus less than 8% for whites. The EEOC further demands Sheetz offer jobs to all blacks previously denied employment plus back pay and benefits. There is, however, no indication of how many blacks were discriminated against, and Sheetz has denied all wrongdoing.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
What, you don’t want criminals tending your cash register?
We need to, if not kill, serious prune the Administrative State.
Using this logic it is racial discrimination to deny selling guns to those with criminal records.
.
If I am the legal counsel for Sheetz, the first thing I do is compel the EEOC to turn over the names and identifying information of all the alleged “victims” of this discrimination. Then I go and research their criminal backgrounds. Then I file third-party claims against the prosecutors who pursued those criminal cases, as well as the police who arrested the perps.
If refusing to hire criminals is “discrimination,” then prosecuting people is, too.
Leftists continue to use blacks as a wedge. They know a weak spot when they see one. Total disruption of our society is their goal.
Racial discrimation in the minds of people will not be ended by making it illegal, it will only strengthen it.
People discriminate based on their experience.
>
If refusing to hire criminals is “discrimination,” then prosecuting people is, too
>
Excepting that, these days, Leftists don’t prosecute their OWN (IIRC there were > 50 terrorists arrested on campus & immediately let go; though they had broken into & ‘commandeered’ a bldg).
Best to go w/:
- A1S1: ONLY Congress can pass Law
- A1S8: ZERO Const. authority vs. 1st A. Right of association
- 5th A.: Takings, it’s a (private) biz. Don’t like it? Don’t patronize ‘em. (back to 1st A.)
- Contracts Clause
BTTT
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.