Obama Administration Sues Dollar General And BMW For Discrimination

Aren’t you glad we have a federal government that is watching every move we make over us? What would we do without them? I found this latest story at What Would The Founders Think. They wrote about it first in February of this year and now the story is coming to fruition. If you are a business owner, ie. someone who employs one or more people, this should give you reason for concern. Once again, the government is sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong.

Fox News – The Obama administration is suing Dollar General and a BMW facility in South Carolina for the alleged unfair use of criminal background checks for job applicants, months after warning companies about how such screenings can discriminate against African Americans.

The suits were filed June 11 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which last year issued new guidelines that cautioned against rejecting minority applicants who have committed a crime and recommended businesses eliminate policies that “exclude people from employment based on a criminal record.”

Criminal BackgroundYes, you read that correctly. The Obama administration is suing companies that are using a criminal background check to help decide who they would like to hire to work at their businesses. What seems like a perfectly legitimate way of making sure they don’t hire a criminal is a big no-no. Heaven forbid a company choose to not hire someone because they have a criminal background. No, that’s a new definition of discrimination.

I know I am in full sarcasm mode writing this post, but give me a break. I realize not every person who has committed a crime is a career criminal. Some people do change their habits and behavior. It is, however, up to the company making the hiring decisions if they want to risk hiring them or not. It doesn’t matter if they are red, yellow, black, or white, if they have a criminal  background, any given company is within their rights to refuse to hire them. It is their decision to make, not the federal government’s.

This puts companies in a no win situation. They want to make sure the people they hire can be trusted. That’s why they run the criminal background checks. The federal government, in its infinite wisdom and desire to force equality down our throats, has decided these companies shouldn’t be allowed to do that. Hence, the lawsuits. Another fine example of a federal government that is reaching far past its constitutional boundaries.

About LD Jackson

LD Jackson has written 2036 posts in this blog.

Founder and author of the political and news commentary blog Political Realities. I have always loved to write, but never have I felt my writing was more important than in this present day. If I have changed one mind or impressed one American about the direction our country is headed, then I will consider my endeavors a success. I take the tag line on this blog very seriously. Above all else, in search of the truth.

In Case You Missed It...

19 comments to Obama Administration Sues Dollar General And BMW For Discrimination

  • This is ridiculous on a number of levels. Employers should be free to use criminal background checks to determine employment. That a disproportionate amount of criminals are black isn’t relevant. If the President would like to argue against the prison nation that we’ve become, there’s a way to do that without suing Dollar General. There is a legitimate argument to be made against the lock up of non-violent criminals and drug laws.

    • Ridiculous is a nice way of putting it. I have tried to understand the government’s reasoning on this and simply can not. They point blank said they wanted companies to move away from using policies that included criminal background checks on prospective employees. It makes no sense in any way that I can think of. It is the government’s way of meddling into affairs that are none of its business.

  • EstablishmentByProxy

    Racist!

    First to make the charge…do I win a prize? Can I get a pat on the back from ‘reverend’ Sharpton or the J-dog?

    Of course, I’m right with respect to laying that charge at the feet of a bureaucracy that first checks on the melanin content of our most superficial organ to know when to persecute the little folk. Those closed minded hill-billies running DG must surely have earned it. Maybe they also need an IRS audit…

    • As it usually is with this administration, the charge of racism is never far away. Surely Dollar General and BMW must have done something extremely egregious to be slapped with a lawsuit. Maybe they dared to decline to hire someone because of their criminal background and because that person happened to be black, it had to be racism. That sounds like it would be right down the same line of thinking this administration has used from the first day Obama moved into the White House.

  • I would say it is unbelievable but nothing surprises me anymore. The government has just gotten to the point where it feels nothing is out of their reach when it comes to controlling the people or how they run their businesses.

  • Employers are the only class that have no rights.

  • First, I find it interesting that the EEOC seems to be saying that a disproportionate number of convicted criminals are black people.

    Second, I would love for some gutless reporter to do an article on the hiring practices at the EEOC. I’ll bet a dollar they run criminal background checks.

  • I wonder if the Obama MORONS would object to the extensive background checks done on Law Enforcement??

    And if you look at this guy that sprung the NSA leak, maybe they should do a bit deeper investigation…

    All of this overly PB is pure BS, some jobs just can’t allow a criminal background, unless the hardest thing they have to do is ask you, “Would you like fries with that?”

  • MY BAD.. Overly PC stuff, not PB… :(

  • Well, I hope you realize that you are speaking of the SAME Obama administration that has fast-tracked Saudi Nationals through the visa and airport security apparatus … because checking Mohammedans is offensive to, well, I suppose to terrorists and administrations that facilitate them. Obama is a racist asshole, which makes him the perfect leader for his entire cabinet.

  • Bettybb

    As usual, it seems Fox only tells half of the story and omits the part that explains what is going on.

    BMW took over a plant from another employee. All the existing exmployees were asked to submit applications for jobs with BMW. BMW ran criminal background checks and did not hire those with criminal backgrounds. It turned out most were black. They said it was because they want their work force to feel safe so don’t want those with a criminal background to be around.

    The fact is, these folks had been working with everyone else for years without problems. Obviously the other employees were in no danger. So the reason for conducting the criminal background checks had no merit and resulted in a disproportionate number of blacks not being hired.

    What if an employer has a work force composed of 50% married women with children who have been model employees for many years, and not taken off extra time to care for their kids. Then a new owner comes along and fires all the women because they MIGHT take more time off because of motherhood. Obviously that is discriminatory and not a valid reason to deny employment.

    This is what the EEOC is saying. Not that a company cannot conduct criminal background checks, but that it use that information to create reasonable criteria for hiring or not hiring.

    • And as usual, you have found an excuse for the actions of the Obama administration. I wonder what crime Dollar General is guilty of?

      Did you not read the last part of the quote from Fox News? The EEOC has specifically recommended that businesses stop using criminal background checks as a part of their hiring process.

      Your example of the married women with children is comparing apples and oranges. In other words, there is no comparison between that and a worker who has a criminal background. BMW was well within their rights to act as they did. It is their business, not that of the federal government.

      • EstablishmentByProxy

        Indeed, this is another example of a freedom of association issue similar to the business/client services refusal matter previously blogged.

        The business would presumably want to keep employees which are beneficial to it, be that high a performer, rare skill/experience or otherwise. Generic policies applied without regard for individual context can indeed be harsh/clinical.

        The rub is that even well meaning contextual consideration could actually backfire on the institution, more easily exposing it to litigation due to ‘disparate outcome’ charges.

        Rock, meet hard place; damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

  • What could go wrong. Bank tellers next?

  • As to Bettybb’s excuse for BMW, BMW has every right to fire those employees, no matter how comfortably, even seamlessly, they had supposedly worked with others. BMW should not have been held to the former employer’s standards.

    I’ve owned a company, hired and fired and I always did background checks and wanted to hire no one with anything criminal on their record. A criminal records indicates you have done something criminal. What is so difficult to understand about that? Others feel differently and should have the right to hire whom they want. If you want a criminal in your company, even those committing minor crimes, then hire them.

    The agenda of this administration is to elevate Blacks and Muslims, and the agenda is racist. We’d better begin saying it out-loud. It may already be too late.

  • dcnj

    ” It is their business, not that of the federal government.”

    ’nuff said.

  • So does this mean DOJ is going to sue every school district that runs a criminal background check on teachers?


  • Trackbacks: