Equal Opportunity Agency states minorities commit more crimes

#26
#26
lawgator1 said:
I'm not sure. I mean, I don't know if a criminal attack by one employee on another is actionable as against the employer. I suppose you are right someone could claim it, but I don't know that it is viable in your jurisdiction.

Abiding by the rules might be offered up by you as a defense, too. That is, let's assume something like that happens. If you can't do the check by law, it might bar the claim or at least be considered in whether you can be held liable.

Interesting because, if so, these regulations might actually HELP employers by reducing liability for crimes by new hires with undiscovered records.
Click to expand...

always a silver lining...
 
#29
#29
lawgator1 said:
I'm not sure. I mean, I don't know if a criminal attack by one employee on another is actionable as against the employer. I suppose you are right someone could claim it, but I don't know that it is viable in your jurisdiction.

Abiding by the rules might be offered up by you as a defense, too. That is, let's assume something like that happens. If you can't do the check by law, it might bar the claim or at least be considered in whether you can be held liable.

Interesting because, if so, these regulations might actually HELP employers by reducing liability for crimes by new hires with undiscovered records.
Click to expand...

The key is reasonable cause which is vague.

If they were to do this correct and have a list of SIC codes that could not base on felonies it would be much more helpful.

But its the government so reasonable cause will mean lawyers get to debate if it was reasonable or not in court.
 
#31
#31
Is there even a point of being an entrepreneur anymore? Just going to study Management and work at McD for the rest of my life, maybe the government will give me my EBT if I just work part-time.
 
#33
#33
lawgator1 said:
So, the rules require that you have a job related reason to check. If the position calls for someone to go into people's homes, maybe to deliver furniture or do some kind of work, you can still do the check. Even the attorney for employers says it really doesn't change anything other than make sure that there is some kind of relationship between the job and the background check.
Click to expand...

I personally know of many furniture movers here in Nashville who were fired in 2008 when Alexander's and Apex both ran background checks on their current employees (no pre-employment screen was given). This led to cars being repossessed, apartments lost, relationships being destoyed and so on. -- On the other hand I don't want a serious felon (murder, rape, robbery) in my home either. This is a tough issue with no clear-cut answer. People need to be able to find work. Employees don't want criminals. Maybe we should re-assess what is criminal and who we are labeling as such. Something has to be done and I don't pretend to know what.
 
#35
#35
lawgator1 said:
I am assuming that, as a college professor, you see the error in your logic and are just using the bolded above as bait.
Click to expand...

did he imply any causation or just cite a stat? You inferred the causation, you racist bastage.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top