Are Businesses That Use Background Checks in Hiring Guilty of Discrimination?

It’s no secret that black joblessness is sky high. At 15.6% in July, the African American unemployment rate is almost twice that of the white unemployment rate, which is 8.6%. But could the reason for the discrepancy be that a growing number of companies screen applicants for bad credit and criminal records?

According to the Society for Human Resource Management, 73% of major companies always conduct criminal background checks on applicants, and 13% always conduct credit checks. Now, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is warning employers who rule out applicants on these screenings alone that they may be violating anti-discrimination laws. That’s because blacks and Latinos are more likely to have records than other groups. African Americans are six times more likely than whites to be incarcerated, and Hispanics are 2.3 times more likely than whites to be, according to the Associated Press. Rather than rule out applicants with convictions, the EEOC suggests that companies compare applicants’ offenses with their potential job duties.

It would make perfect sense for a drug store to deny work to an applicant convicted of prescription forgery, but little sense for a restaurant to deny work to a dishwasher convicted of the same. Yet, companies often turn down jobs to applicants convicted of offenses that have nothing to do with the work in question.

Don’t get me wrong. It’s understandable that companies want applicants with integrity, but if workers with checkered pasts have paid for their crimes, it’s unfair to punish them all over again in the workforce. If society really wants to lower the recidivism rate for criminals, it must commit to providing convicts ways to earn a living.

Similarly, those with bad credit shouldn’t be denied work because of their payment histories alone. Ironically, the reason many people fall behind on payments is because they’re un- or underemployed. So, turning down work to job applicants with bad credit, who are desperate to fatten their pockets, only exacerbates the problem.

Fortunately, the EEOC has already started going after companies who rely on background checks to make hiring decisions. In 2009, the agency filed a class-action lawsuit against Dallas-based Freeman Cos., alleging that the events planning firm discriminated against African American, Latino and male job applicants based on their credit and criminal histories. Although Freeman denies any wrongdoing, other companies are taking notice of the EEOC’s move. Instead of refusing work to anyone with a record or bad credit, organizations are evaluating applicants on a case-by-case basis, the AP reports.

Why else are background checks problematic? They can sometimes be misleading or inaccurate. Credit reports frequently contain mistakes, and convictions that have been overturned still turn up in record searches.

Adrienne Hudson is a case in point. She lost her bus driver job after only two days because her Oakland, Calif.-based employer discovered she’d been convicted of welfare fraud.

Turns out, her conviction had been dismissed.

Now Hudson is suing her former employer, demonstrating that background checks may not only spell bad news for job applicants, but for the companies who regard them as gospel.

Photo Credit: bpsusf