pagerman @ work said:
Quote:
The Sheetz convenience store chain has been hit with a lawsuit by federal officials who allege the company discriminated against minority job applicants.
Sheetz Inc., which operates more than 700 stores in six states, discriminated against Black, Native American and multiracial job seekers by automatically weeding out applicants whom the company deemed to have failed a criminal background check, according to U.S. officials.
So now not wanting to hire people with criminal backgrounds is discrimination against minorities?
There seems to be more than a little racism in the underlying assumptions of that assertion.
This is just the latest incarnation of the "disparate impact" doctrine put forth by SCOTUS in
Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (401 U.S. 424 (1971)).
Basically, you can have a criteria that is neutral on its face (like the requirement to pass a criminal background check) that has a "disparate" negative impact on members of a protected class (race, sex, etc), then that criteria can be ruled illegal by the courts.
The specific item in
Griggs was the use of an aptitude test to select for promotions. IIRC, the test was actually derived from one originally used by the military during WWII. But since no black workers passed the test, the court decided it was
de facto illegal discrimination.