Banner ad

Saturday, August 10, 2013

Cruising the Web

The EEOC's crusade to use disparate impact arguments to keep employers from performing criminal and credit background checks when hiring had its day in federal court. The result was not pretty for the EEOC's cockamanie position.
The EEOC disagreed, arguing that background checks would have a "disparate impact" on minorities. But the agency didn't claim that Freeman intended to discriminate. The EEOC claimed the company violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act because minorities have, on average, lower credit scores and more criminal convictions than whites.

U.S. District Judge Roger Titus scored the agency for presenting faulty data into evidence, dragging out the court proceedings and putting employers "in the 'Hobson's choice' of ignoring criminal history and credit background, thus exposing themselves to potential liability for criminal and fraudulent acts committed by employees, on the one hand, or incurring the wrath of the EEOC for having utilized information deemed fundamental by most employers."

And if that wasn't a clear enough message, he continued: "Something more, far more, than what is relied upon by the EEOC in this case must be utilized to justify a disparate impact claim based upon criminal history and credit checks. To require less, would be to condemn the use of common sense, and this is simply not what the discrimination laws of this country require."
Slash. That was delightful in a judicially sober manner.

So did both the Justice Department and Obama violate legal rules of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure?

Inaction can be a good thing. So stop blaming the Republicans for inaction in Congress. First, the Democrat-controlled Senate has actually passed fewer bills than the GOP in the House. Of course, that is due to the nature of both houses. But not passing a bad law is preferable to passing lots of problematical laws.

So is Edward Snowden smiling now?

Just why are people eager for Chelsea Clinton to run for office?

Some Democrats now are admitting that Obamacare's Independent Payment Advisory Board really is all about rationing. They're only now coming around to what Sarah Palin said from the very beginning.

This is what feminism has come to today - a woman is proud of her toddler daughter's boasting of the size of her "poos." She worries about the moment when she stops talking about her bowel movements because that will signify that she has given in to the man or something.

No comments: