While the action in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals only affects a narrow range of employers, legal action such as this could occur across the country.
WALTHAM, Mass. (PRWEB) June 18, 2018
A recent lawsuit in the 7th circuit over disparate impact and potential illegal hiring practices (Kleber v. CareFusion Corp., No. 17-1206 (7th Cir., Apr. 26, 2018) highlights an immediate need for all hiring managers to work with a well-qualified background screening agency. Adam Almeida, President and CEO of CriminalBackgroundRecords.com opines: “Disparate Impact is a confusing legal term, but one that need be noted in regards to the potential of legal action over compliance to laws governing pre-employment background screening.”
The issue of experience for an open employment position is important and one that should be considered carefully. Employers place a given value on experience and often highlight those experiential requirements within a job posting. However, employers must take care in how candidates that may have “too much” experience are handled in the pre-employment process.
Recently, a legal action took place in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit that may have long ranging impact.
From a posting at HRDailyAdvisor.com (Jun 06, 18):
A 58-year-old attorney had too much experience to seek an in-house legal position with a healthcare products company. In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit (whose rulings apply to Illinois employers) considered whether the “disparate impact” provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) covers job applicants or only current employees. (1)
Almeida opines: “While the action in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals only affects a narrow range of employers (Illinois specifically), legal action such as this could occur across the country. Employers must be engaged with a well-qualified third-party pre-employment background screening agency in order to maintain compliance with all law.”
Maintaining compliance with law, especially those regarding protected classes specific to the pre-employment vetting process, are difficult and challenging tasks. It appears that a practice that is commonplace and relatively uncomplicated can be a task proven to legal interpretation.
From Lexology.com (May 15, 18):
Everyone knows that employers covered by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) cannot intentionally refuse to hire job applicants because they are 40 years old or older, and that it is generally unlawful to post a job advertisement that says “people over the age of 40 need not apply.” Such practices constitute impermissible “disparate treatment” under the statute, but what about age-neutral hiring practices that may have a “disparate impact” on older applicants, such as posting advertisements for candidates with only “one to three years of experience,” or recruiting for entry-level professional positions exclusively on university campuses? These and other common practices may also be unlawful, according to a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. (2)
Almeida concludes: “As highlighted by recent court action, now is the time for all hiring managers and HR departments to review relevant hiring practices and to work with a well-qualified employment background screening agency in order to maintain compliance with all existing and potential laws governing hiring.”
CriminalBackgroundRecords.com is a third-party background screening company with highly trained operators well versed in the needs and requirements of companies and organizations large and small utilizing public records, such as criminal background records, as part of a hiring process. Assisting companies in maintaining full compliance under the law is a central tenet of all client relationships with CriminalBackgroundRecords.com