Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

EarendilHalfElf t1_jecrsqy wrote

Reply to comment by newmoon23 in My job didn’t work out guys….I got asked to leave once my background came back with the felony court case I’m going through right now. Anyone at all still know where I can work? by Jonny_Balls

No, we don't agree. I literally just said for just an arrest - no. Only a conviction and only if it's related.

0

newmoon23 t1_jeeabc5 wrote

But you just read the same thing I did where the EEOC says they can use an arrest as the basis not to hire someone.

1

EarendilHalfElf t1_jeeephp wrote

And as I said, it clearly states in there that an arrest is not an indicator of what I'm doing. Arresting is almost never used as a basis, and when it is, and it's challenged, the employer typically finds themselves in trouble. So again, being arrested for something is not in and of itself a valid reason. A conviction can be, but even then there has to be a connection and the article literally says, "An employer cannot refuse to hire people simply because they have been arrested."

1

newmoon23 t1_jeeibwd wrote

It literally says the employer can determine that the conduct at issue in the arrest is a reason not to hire if it makes the person not fit for the position.

And get real, employers aren’t telling you the reason they don’t hire you. There is nothing that actually prevents them from just deciding a candidate with pending charges “isn’t a good fit” and just not calling them back.

1

EarendilHalfElf t1_jeeigvx wrote

And this is where critical thought, and the ability to think outside the box needs to come into your equation. By your own words, it is not the arrest that can be used against a person, but rather their behavior during the process. A person who resist arrest and say attacks the cop in the process, would be a problem. But in that situation, the issue isn't that they were arrested, the issue was that they chose to say attack the cop. You're reading what it says, now I need you to pay attention to what it says.

1

newmoon23 t1_jeep6l9 wrote

You are playing semantics. You can't just admit that this happens routinely and is justified by the very guidelines you claim prohibit it. Very weird.

1

EarendilHalfElf t1_jeepe7f wrote

I'm not playing semantics at all. That's literally what it says. Word for word. No reading between the lines, no personal interpretation. I've spent last 30 professional years working in employment law for corporations that have locations not only internationally, but in 25 states, including CT, in the us. I deal with this literally on a daily basis. Aside from being able to read what the EEOC literally says in black and white, I also have three decades of practical experience. I know what I'm talking about. If you choose to dismiss all that because you want the answer to be something else, that's your prerogative. Have at it my friend.

1

newmoon23 t1_jeepwl3 wrote

Trying to separate the conduct of the arrest from the arrest itself, in this context, is playing semantics. The result is the same for the applicant.

You and I both know that even if the EEOC outright banned using the facts of an arrest/pending charges as a basis not to hire, there is almost never going to be a way to prove that's what happened because employers aren't required to, and don't volunteer, information about why candidates aren't selected.

1

EarendilHalfElf t1_jeeq78v wrote

It's not playing semantics, and again it's literally what it says. And again, for what it's worth, you're talking to somebody who spent 30 years dealing with among other things, this very question. I'm telling you from experience that what it says is how it's implemented. Now at the end of the day, if reading the language literally from the EEOC isn't enough to convince you, if hearing it from an employment law specialist with 30 years of experience on how this is actually implemented is it enough to convince you, then I don't know what else to tell you. You have my permission to believe whatever you want, godspeed. I just hope whatever your job is, it doesn't involve making hiring decisions on behalf of your employer. Because if you are making hiring decisions based on the simple fact of whether or not a person was or wasn't arrested for something, you're exposing not only your employer to some serious liability, but depending upon the state you're in you're exposing yourself personally to liability as well. Do with that what you will.

1

newmoon23 t1_jeerczd wrote

Okay, so let me clarify that I think this practice is messed up but that does not mean it isn't routine. For the record, "law specialist" I am a lawyer, I practice criminal defense and I have dozens of clients who are in the same boat as OP. They file applications and can't even get a call for an interview. No one is telling them "we saw you have pending charges and we won't hire you because of that." They just aren't getting calls. It doesn't take a genius to understand that those things are related and that there is nothing preventing this from happening all the damn time.

You might get some corporate case once in a blue moon where an applicant was making their way through the hiring process and picked up an arrest and suddenly the employer loses interest and you get to make an argument that they didn't strictly follow the EEOC guidelines, but I've got 10 clients every day who tell me they're applying everywhere and can't even get a call back because employers do a google search or check the judicial website and see they have open cases. No one in the employment law sector is even going to hear about a 10th of those cases, let alone try to litigate them.

1

EarendilHalfElf t1_jeerwip wrote

I'm happy you're a lawyer. While I'm not a practicing lawyer, I do have law degrees as well, and I specialize in employment law. From a corporate perspective, this isn't something that comes up once in a blue moon. We have 200,000 employees. We get background check issues that come up probably 5 to 6 times a week every week. I'm very happy that you're a lawyer, but that doesn't mean your take on this is correct either. Being a criminal defense lawyer does not mean that you are practiced in the hiring practices of corporations, being a criminal defense lawyer does not mean that you understand on a daily basis how those laws are applied. So once again, I'm going to make a distinction that, if you actually are a lawyer, should be relatively easy for you to understand. No employer anywhere, is going to use the simple fact that somebody was arrested, as a basis not to hire them. And the reason for that is twofold. Once again, the EEOC clearly says not to do that. Secondly, and again if you actually are a criminal defense lawyer you should know this better than anybody, a person is innocent until proven guilty. An arrest is not an indicator of guilt. So one more time, take whatever law practice you may or may not have, but get yourself a slightly better corporate understanding. This is applying hiring practices to corporations. This isn't a criminal defense area, this is an employment law area.

1

newmoon23 t1_jeesj2r wrote

You aren't actually listening to what I'm telling you the issue is, so it's pretty pointless for me to keep spinning my wheels but I'll try one last time.

I asked you where the information came from because I was hoping there was something I could direct my clients to in order to help them. But there is nothing in the EEOC guidelines that is going to prevent employers from simply not calling an applicant back when they see pending charges. They don't have to explain that decision to anyone. But everyone knows why, and I think you know exactly what would happen if one of my clients went to an employment lawyer and said "I'm not getting any calls back on my applications and I think it's because I have pending charges."

1

EarendilHalfElf t1_jeet6oq wrote

I deleted that last comment cuz that wasn't fair of me to say that. It is entirely possible that you are an attorney, you're just talking about a legal specialty that isn't in your wheelhouse and therefore you don't understand how it is practically applied. So forgive me for saying that. But I still stand by what I said, I've been doing this for 30 years, this is in fact exactly how it works - and your criminal law experience that to the extent that you have it - is not applicable to say that you are an expert on this particular field of law.

1

newmoon23 t1_jeetn5y wrote

Okay, PM me your firm's info so I can send all my clients to you when they can't get calls back from all the applications they send out.

I literally never said, implied, or suggested I am an expert in employment law. I've told you about the real issues my clients face with this, and you're basically telling me "nah, can't happen." So let me send them to you.

1

EarendilHalfElf t1_jeetuld wrote

Yeah, nice try. Your attempt at his anger there is falling just about as flat as your argument has. Like I said, an international organization with 200,000 employees. Every one of our jobs is publicly posted on multiple job boards. If you have clients that are looking for a job, have them apply for any job they see that they think they're a fit for and despite your desire to have people discriminate against them for having an arrest record, we'll actually treat them fairly. think I made my point. Have a great day.

0

newmoon23 t1_jeeu4yh wrote

I'm not angry. You're telling me you can solve this problem for my clients, I'm telling you they could use the help.

1

EarendilHalfElf t1_jeeuaxl wrote

And I'm telling you your best bet is to tell them to apply for any job that they see for which they believe they are qualified. If one of those jobs happens to be with my organization, they're going to have no issues about getting the job simply because they have an arrest record. For your part as their attorney, direct them to an employment law attorney who can help them fight the jobs they are in getting simply because of an arrest record. As a criminal defense lawyer you're unlikely in a position to be able to help them with defending their legal rights, but an employment law attorney can do so. So direct them to them because those other companies need to be set straight if they are in fact engaging in that discriminatory practice.

1

newmoon23 t1_jeevp7q wrote

See, I know you weren't actually hearing me because you're telling me to have them do exactly what they're already doing.

>those other companies need to be set straight if they are in fact engaging in that discriminatory practice.

Again, zero way to prove this is happening, but everyone knows it's happening.

1

EarendilHalfElf t1_jeew7cp wrote

I am listening to what you're saying. And there is a way to prove it, if it's actually happening. If they have no proof that that's what the issue is, then they don't know that it's actually happening. The fact that it's difficult to prove doesn't mean that it is or isn't happening. It's simply means it is difficult to prove. Again, a good employment lawyer can take the facts and dig out the truth if the truth is there to be found because that is literally the job of a lawyer. So yes I am listening to you, now you need to listen to me - hook them up with the good employment attorney.

1

newmoon23 t1_jeey1l2 wrote

I am sure my indigent clients will go running to the nearest employment lawyer in the hopes that they will somehow find a way to prove that they aren't getting calls because employers are inappropriately applying EEOC guidelines that flat out say the conduct at issue can be used as a basis not to hire them.

1

EarendilHalfElf t1_jeey58f wrote

Again, if you really are a lawyer, then you know the fault with that statement that you just made. That is law, and that's how it works. There's nothing I can do to help you, or your clients with that.

1

newmoon23 t1_jeeyjka wrote

That's exactly my point. This happens routinely and there is nothing you or anyone else can do to stop it.

1

EarendilHalfElf t1_jeezd5r wrote

I don't know what else to say to you at this point other than to say that as an attorney, your answer should not be it happens and there's nothing nobody can do about it. That's not a particularly good attitude to have, and it also isn't true. And so I'm going to State it one more time, and then I'm going to drop out because now this conversation really is spinning its meals. Nothing is easy to prove, especially claims of discrimination. But if you go to the right attorney, tell them your case, and there's something there to be found Dash that attorney will find it and will run with it. Again, if you actually are a criminal defense attorney, you may be the best one in the state - but that's not what your clients need for this particular issue. Help them with whatever arrest issues they have, but for this issue they don't need a criminal defense attorney, they need an employment attorney. Don't make the decision for somebody else as to whether or not the case can or can't be proven. Either take it on yourself and do the investigating to find out, or give it to somebody who specializes in this particular branch of the law and let them make the decision. You owe it to whatever clients you have to give them the best legal advice. I'm not a practicing attorney, but I am legally trained on this matter and I'm giving you what is at least at the core of what is the best legal advice.

1

newmoon23 t1_jeezqs2 wrote

I'm explaining to you the real obstacles that my clients face. They are indigent, they are trying, and they get nowhere. For you to come in and just say "nah this doesn't happen and if it does just hire an employment lawyer" is like, peak privilege.

1

EarendilHalfElf t1_jef00sf wrote

I'm sorry man I'm trying not to say this, but I'm really doubting that "I'm a criminal attorney" statement you made there, but again, I have no idea who you are so what do I know. Look I've given you the right answer, I've even tried to explain to you what your obligation is to your own clients. Do it that information what you will - but at this point we now really are simply wasting each other's time. Have a great

0

newmoon23 t1_jef5hxa wrote

I don’t care what you believe about my job, “employment law specialist.”

1

EarendilHalfElf t1_jeestoj wrote

Again, of the two of us, one has clients who may have a complaint about it - one of us has spent 30 years actually doing it.

0