A-squared, I refer you to the Lexis-nexis link I provided earlier. Perhaps you should google what Lexis-Nexis is. Or ask any HR professional.
Uhhh, Jim. I'm quite aware of who and what LexisNexis is. The thing is, they are wrong. period. As are you...wrong. The EEOC for a fact does not forbid asking about arrests. When this thread popped up again, I did a little digging. One google search and you get a wealth of information which shows that you are in fact wrong about this. Direct from the EEOC:
http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_race_color.html
# Arrest & Conviction Records - Using arrest or conviction records as an absolute bar to employment disproportionately excludes certain racial groups. Therefore, such records should not be used in this manner unless there is a business need for their use.
Whether there is a business need to exclude persons with conviction records from particular jobs depends on the nature of the job, the nature and seriousness of the offense, and the length of time since the conviction and/or incarceration.
Unlike a conviction, an arrest is not reliable evidence that an applicant has committed a crime. Thus, an exclusion based on an arrest record is only justified if it appears not only that the conduct is job-related and relatively recent but also that the applicant or employee actually engaged in the conduct for which (s)he was arrested.
Huh. golly gee, now why do you suppose that the EEOC would be giving you guidelines on when it is and is not appropriate to use arrest records in employment decisions if it was illegal to ask about those arrest records?
It just don't make sense, do it?
Here's an interesting page on the website of an organization which is involved in advocacy for persons with criminal records:
http://www.lac.org/toolkits/titlevii/title_vii.htm
Here's an interesting quote from that page:
In states lacking such regulation, employers can deny jobs to applicants solely because of their criminal record, even if the record consists only of arrests that did not lead to conviction or convictions that are old, minor, and/or unrelated to the job.
Don'cha think that if there really was a federal regulation that forbade asking about arrests, this organization would know about it (that's what they do) and they would be trumpeting it loudly? Don't you think if asking about arrests was really prohibited by federal law that they wouldn't admit that it is in fact permitted to not only ask, but to use that information in an employment decision? Hmmmmmm?
Here's a fascinating document from an company which provides human resources management services and advice. It's all about how to ask about arrests in a manner which is acceptable to the EEOC.
http://www.adpselect-info.com/client/pdf/freeBackgroundScreeningDownload.pdf.
In fact, the document is subtitied:
A white paper on how to use arrest, conviction and misdemeanor information in the selection process
Note that word in the middle that I've highlighted a little to make it easier for you to find. Kind of an odd sort of document to find a country in which it is illegal to ask about arrests, don't you think? You should read it, it's fascinating reading. Here's some highlights:
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) stipulates that employers can use arrest information, convictions and misdemeanor offenses in the selection process, but they cannot be the only criteria used to make a hiring decision.
Well, hot D@mn, that doesn't sound quite like "the EEOC prohibits asking about arrest records" to me...does it sound like that to you? Just a few lines down the same paper says:
EEOC policy states, "An arrest record may be used as evidence of conduct upon which an employer makes an employment decision.
Hmmm, that sounds pretty reasonable to me, but it sure doesn’t sound anything like "the EEOC prohibits........" they also provide a reference for that EEOC policy (EEOC Policy Statement, N-915.061, II.B.2., September 7, 1990) Something that I would point out was conspicuously absent from your lexis nexis page, which is precisely why I said : "show me the source" , which is precisely what you were *not* able to do.
Again from the same document:
The EEOC also cautions employers when asking applicants to disclose arrest information on job applications that did not result in convictions because it may have a disparate, negative impact on the hiring of minorities. In addition, some states prohibit this practice altogether.
Hmmmm, "cautions" ...ain't quite the same as "prohibits" now is it. Mebbe that's where you're confused. Grab one of them dictionaries and look up "cautions" and "prohibits". You may notice that they don't mean the same thing.
Of course except for the first quote I gave you, most of these have been secondary sources (even though some specifically cite EEOC official statements) so I thought it would be nice if we went back to the source. Here's an EEOC page which is oriented toward hiring practices realted to disabilities and hiring.
http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/preemp.html (note the EEOC.gov domain)
There's a question-answer section:
* May an employer ask applicants about their arrest or conviction
records?
Yes. Questions about an applicant's arrest or conviction records are not likely to elicit information about disability because there are many reasons unrelated to disability why someone may have an arrest/conviction record.
Now the answer is obviously given in the context of whether or not there are ADA implications of asking about arrests. However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that if the EEOC really did prohibit asking about arrests, the answer would be something like this:
No, inquiring about arrests is not prohibited by the ADA, but the EEOC prohibits asking about arrests for other reasons.
It doesn't. Instead the answer (from the EEOC) is "yes, you may ask about arrests." Kinda hard to read that as "asking about arrests is forbidden by federal law", isn’t it?
Now, mind you, this is just from one Google search, only one, and this is not all of it, by any stretch of the imagination. I could go on, and on, and on with the references, for pages and pages, all telling you the same thing. I won’t, though. I’ll just give one more reference, and I’ve saved the best for last. This is a letter from the EEOC Office of Legal Counsel in response to an inquiry on the subject. It would be tough to find something more on point than this.
http://www.cir-nc.com/documents/titlevii_arrest_convictio.pdf.
Title VII does not forbid an employer from requiring applicants to provide information about arrest or conviction records.
I dunno, it really doesn’t get much clearer than that. The EEOC attorney then goes on to explain how to ask about arrests in a manner that avoids other legal problems.
When an employer asks employees or applicants about their arrest or conviction history, the EEOC suggests that it assures applicants and employees that honestly providing such history will not automatically disqualify them from consideration for the position.
Now that seems to beg the question, if the EEOC forbids asking about arrests, why are their attorneys telling people it’s legal, and explaining the proper way to ask about arrests?
Hmmmmmm?????
I wish it were possible to ask about arrests in an interview, because I interview people for my little (non-aviation) company and my lawyer won't let me ask that question.
Well, I thought that I had read on a previous thread that you are an attorney. (Although I suppose that actually there’s nothing here saying you aren’t) at any rate, attorney or not, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to grasp that "my attorney recommends against...." is a vastly different thing than "......... is forbidden by federal law"
An example is references from previous employers. Many attorneys strongly recommend that a company never give a negative reference for a former employee, no matter how bad that employee was , even if the employee was fired. The reasoning, I guess, is that it’s just safer to not go there, because of the possibility of defending against a lawsuit which would get down to "he said, she said", and even if the company wins, it still loses money and resources. Whether this is a good or bad policy is a matter of opinion. It does not, however mean that it is illegal to gave an honest, but unfavorable evaluation of a former employee. Two totally different things.
