BMW Sued By U.S. Government Over Discriminatory Use of Criminal-Background Checks in Hiring

Federal regulators Tuesday accused two large employers of improperly using criminal-background checks in hiring, the latest salvo in a contentious debate over whether such screening amounts to discrimination against black applicants.

In complaints filed in federal courts in Illinois and South Carolina, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said two companies discount retailer Dollar General Corp. DG +0.59% and a U.S. unit of German auto maker BMW AG BMW.XE -2.04% generally barred potential employees based on the criminal checks, when they should have reviewed each applicant. The commission said the policies had the effect of discriminating against black applicants.

At BMW, the EEOC alleges that the auto maker hired a new logistics contractor at its Spartanburg, S.C., assembly plant in 2008, and required 645 employees of the prior contractor to undergo a new criminal background check. Of those, 55% were black; but 80% of the 88 terminated employees were black. Some of the dismissed employees had worked for various contractors at the BMW plant for as long as 14 years. BMW employs 9,000 people in the U.S.

BMW of North America said, "BMW believes that it has complied with the letter and spirit of the law and will defend itself against the EEOC's allegations of race discrimination.…We have a strong culture of nondiscrimination as evidenced by the company's highly diverse workforce."
Read Article

Agent009 - 6/12/2013 10:52:30 AM

+1 Boost

Before we throw the Race card here. Does any one know what the cause of termination was? Bad Credit (legitimate), criminal record (legitimate), Outstanding warrants (legitimate)

LexSucks - 6/12/2013 1:33:04 PM

-12 Boost

"Before we throw the Race card here"

- Funny how you are the only one that mentioned it. Why?

vogeygolf - 6/12/2013 12:22:28 PM

0 Boost

It was criminal record. What the EEOC is trying to do is take a doctrine from discrimination in lending, specifically disparate impact, and extend it to hiring. There was something a couple of months ago in the news that the EEOC was going to target companies who use criminal background checks in hiring. In the lending world, disparate impact is when a company has a policy that on the face is not discriminatory, however, the IMPACT of the policy tends to impact disparately, any protected classes under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. HUD recently codified disparate impact by requiring :1. Claimants prove statistically that the policy has a disparate impact 2. Lenders muct prove that the policy is required (business necessity) 3. That the claimants must show there is a better practice that accomplishes the business need

Not familiar with employment law at all, so it will be interesting to see what legal approach the EEOC will take with this.