A meeting in Washington, D.C. on July 26 will bring together the EEOC, the U.S. agency that enforces employment discrimination laws, and the NAPBS, a group that has the interests of background screening companies at heart. This meeting comes at a time when those in the criminal justice reform movement are advocating for restrictions on criminal background checks, claiming they prevent now law-abiding citizens to be rejected for employment based on past transgressions.
NAPBS is opposed to changes that would make background checks more difficult citing the need to “protect persons and property in the workplace.” Reentry organizations point to the fact that employment of formerly incarcerated persons greatly reduces the rate of recidivism and increases public safety. Those with a criminal history are being unjustly penalized for prior mistakes, these organizations maintain. Some background checks report a crime for which a person was arrested, but was not convicted, which may cloud the employer’s view of a person. The myth that if a person was arrested then he or she must have been guilty still persists and stigmatizes millions of Americans.
The EEOC recommends that employers consider the following when making a decision on whether to hire a formerly incarcerated person:
The nature and gravity of the offense or offenses
The time that has passed since the conviction or completion of the sentence
The nature of the job held or sought
Criminal background checks are a booming business for companies in that field. Larry Rosen, founder and CEO of Employment Resource Screening, one such company, states that background screening businesses are well aware of EEOC rules and use this knowledge to educate employers. Rosen claims that background screeners are not the “employment police” and seeks a partnership between screeners and the EEOC. In speaking of the EEOC, Rosen wondered if the Commission has hired any formerly incarcerated persons, or uses background screening themselves, stating “It is my hope the EEOC will lead by moral example and not just by rule making and lawsuits.”
Source: Open Society Institute
|
|
|
|
