Category Archives: Disparate Impact

Background Checks in Hiring—What Employers Can (and Can’t) Do

Introduction

Run­ning back­ground checks on job appli­cants is a pret­ty stan­dard part of the hir­ing process these days. But just because some­thing is com­mon doesn’t mean it’s sim­ple. Between fed­er­al laws, state reg­u­la­tions, and pri­va­cy con­cerns, employ­ers have to walk a fine line. And for appli­cants, it’s impor­tant to under­stand your rights—especially if some­thing from your past might show up.

Let’s break down how back­ground checks work, what’s allowed under fed­er­al and West Vir­ginia law, and how both sides of the hir­ing table can han­dle the process with­out cross­ing legal lines.

What Is a Background Check?

In the employ­ment con­text, a back­ground check is any review of an applicant’s his­to­ry to help an employ­er decide whether to hire them. That can include:

  • Crim­i­nal history
  • Cred­it reports
  • Employ­ment and edu­ca­tion verification
  • Dri­ving records
  • Ref­er­ence checks
Con­tin­ue read­ing Back­ground Checks in Hiring—What Employ­ers Can (and Can’t) Do

US Supreme Court rules pay claims must be filed shortly after discriminatory decision; Ledbetter v Goodyear, 5/29/07

May 29, 2007: In Led­bet­ter v. Goodyear Tire & Rub­ber Com­pa­ny, 550 U.S. 618, 128 S. Ct. 2162 (2007) (Find­Law site opin­ion), the Unit­ed States Supreme Court, in a 5–4 deci­sion, issued an impor­tant deci­sion in a sex dis­crim­i­na­tion case under Title VII of the Civ­il Rights Act of 1964, which sub­stan­tial­ly lim­it­ed the time peri­od avail­able to assert a claim for pay dis­crim­i­na­tion. The Supreme Court affirmed the deci­sion of the Eleventh Cir­cuit in Led­bet­ter v. Goodyear Tire and Rub­ber Com­pa­ny, Inc., 421 F.3d 1169 (11th Cir. 2005).

Ledbetter’s Claims of Sex Discrimination and Lower Pay, and the Trial Result

LillyLedbetter Led­bet­ter filed a charge of sex dis­crim­i­na­tion with the EEOC in 1998 and then lat­er in the year retired. She claimed that, years ear­li­er in her career at Goodyear, male super­vi­sors gave her bad per­for­mance reviews com­pared to what men received. She claimed that Goodyear award­ed rais­es based on those per­for­mance reviews, so that her pay rais­es were reduced as a result of the dis­crim­i­na­to­ry per­for­mance reviews.

Led­bet­ter went to tri­al and per­suad­ed the jury that the per­for­mance reviews, years before she filed her EEOC charge, were dis­crim­i­na­to­ry based on her sex, and the jury found her rights had been vio­lat­ed and award­ed her dam­ages based on her low­er pay­checks through­out her career. The tri­al judge entered a “judg­ment” in Led­bet­ter’s favor based on the jury’s ver­dict. So Led­bet­ter won at tri­al on her sex dis­crim­i­na­tion claim under Title VII. The Eleventh Cir­cuit Court of Appeals threw out the jury ver­dict and tri­al court judg­ment for Led­bet­ter, and entered a judg­ment in favor of Goodyear, based on her fail­ure to file her EEOC charge with­in 180 days of when the per­for­mance reviews had been con­duct­ed. The Unit­ed States Supreme Court affirmed, mean­ing that Goodyear won.

Con­tin­ue read­ing US Supreme Court rules pay claims must be filed short­ly after dis­crim­i­na­to­ry deci­sion; Led­bet­ter v Goodyear, 5/29/07