the EEOC refused to disclose. Dollar General, in a similar suit, has also requested the policy to be made public, and the EEOC has responded likewise. The EEOC argues that its own screening policies are irrelevant to the cases it has open against BMW and Dollar General because, according to the Washington Examiner, “[the EEOC believes] a different legal standard applies to government agencies.” In a legal brief, the EEOC stated “[BMW] argues that EEOC’s hiring practices are relevant and thus discoverable because said practices bear on whether defendant can establish its business necessity defense. In other words, if the EEOC is doing it, it must be lawful. This position is untenable because EEOC’s internal hiring practices do not establish the law or the legality of defendant’s hiring practices.” BMW Manufacturing made it known to the South Carolina District Court, where this case is being heard, that the EEOC has repeatedly refused to provide information about its own hiring practices while pointing fingers at others for having illegal hiring policies, and that the courts have previously concluded that the EEOC’s policies should be considered relevant information. It is assumed that the case the automaker is referring to is the suit brought forth against Kaplan Higher Education, which Kaplan won, as both Kaplan and the EEOC use the same credit checks to prevent “increase[d] temptation to commit illegal or unethical acts.” The EEOC had tried to argue that the credit checks the education company was using impacted more black applicants than white. The EEOC’s hiring policies are set by the Office of Personnel Management. Those policies have not been publicly disclosed.]]>
Quality and Precise Results, On Time!
Let us know about your screening needs to get a custom quote. We work with businesses big and small as well as the government. Which means we have a package of solutions for your organization as well.