Civil Rights Groups Question DOJ's 'Drastically Changed' Stance in EEOC Case
“It bears emphasizing that the department's abrupt shift in position on disparate impact liability is exactly that: abrupt and in tension with its own recently held views, including in this very case,” civil rights lawyers said in an amicus brief in the Fifth Circuit.
September 13, 2018 at 01:58 PM
4 minute read
Civil rights groups condemned the U.S. Justice Department's “about-face” in an ongoing court challenge to federal guidance that aims to reduce employment discrimination against applicants with arrest or conviction records.
The advocates, including the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and National Employment Law Project, on Wednesday went to court to defend the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's guidance that cautions employers against blanket policies that prevent hiring workers with criminal histories. The friend-of-the-court-brief was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, where Texas is challenging the Obama-era EEOC guidance.
The Justice Department represents the EEOC in the case. The move to undermine the guidance marked the latest public clash between the Justice Department and the EEOC, both of which enforce protections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Justice Department lawyers last week told the Fifth Circuit the government would not abandon the appeal. DOJ lawyers, however, told the court that the views of the EEOC and the department did not align on the scope of the guidance as it pertains to “disparate impact” claims.
“It bears emphasizing that the department's abrupt shift in position on disparate impact liability is exactly that: abrupt and in tension with its own recently held views, including in this very case,” Leah Aden, attorney with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund counsel of record, wrote in the friend-of-the-court brief, on behalf of the civil rights advocates. She added, “In short, while the department's position has drastically changed, the relevant statutory provisions of Title VII have not.”
The EEOC's guidance warns employers that relying on criminal convictions to disqualify applicants could have a disparate impact based on race and national origin, citing national data that black and Latino workers are disproportionately convicted. The Justice Department told the Fifth Circuit that it does intend to enforce the EEOC guidance.
“Excluding people with records from meaningful employment opportunities is a surefire recipe for slower economic growth, more widespread poverty, increased recidivism, and additional legal liability for employers,” said Phil Hernandez, staff attorney at the National Employment Law Project. “That's why everyone in Texas and across the country—even people without records—have an undeniable stake in preserving the EEOC's Guidance, which stands atop a strong legal foundation.”
The Justice Department declined to comment Thursday.
Texas sued to block the guidance, arguing the state should have the right to refuse to hire convicted felons without further consideration. Texas said the guidance conflicts with state laws that do not allow businesses to hire certain individuals with criminal histories for certain jobs.
The amicus brief filed Wednesday includes Texas State Conference of the NAACP and a Texas resident named Beverly Harrison, a 62-year-old African-American woman who said she was fired from her job with Dallas County Schools in 2013 because a conviction from 1975. The advocates say Harrison's case crystallizes employment barriers that black and Latino workers face.
The clash in the Fifth Circuit marks the latest public disagreement between the Justice Department and the EEOC, which still has an Obama-appointee majority. Two Trump nominees are pending Senate confirmation.
Last year, the Justice Department lined up against the EEOC in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, arguing that federal civil rights protections do not extend to gay and lesbian workers. Several petitions at the U.S. Supreme Court present this issue to the justices.
The new amicus brief is posted below:
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAmazon, SpaceX Press Constitutional Challenges to NLRB at 5th Circuit
5th Circuit Scrutinizes Under-21 Handgun Sales Ban Based on Supreme Court Test
Trending Stories
- 1Will England Accept that Digital Assets Are ‘Property’?
- 2Congress and Courts Are Considering Litigation Financing: Is Disclosure Imminent?
- 3Bar Report — Nov. 25, 2024
- 4People in the News—Nov. 25, 2024—Eckert Seamans, Klehr Harrison
- 5How We Made Practice Group Chair: 'One of the Most Important Skills Is Being a Good Listener,' Say Timothy Kincaid and Brad Vaiana of Winston & Strawn
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250