Skip to comments.

Obama Administration Sues Dollar General for Using Background Checks on Job Applicants

Gateway Pundit ^ | June 22, 2013 | Jim Hoft

Posted on by Hojczyk

The Obama Administration sued Dollar General for using background checks on job applications because its racist. Its now unlawful to discriminate against applicants who have committed a crime.

The Obama administration is suing Dollar General and a BMW facility in South Carolina for the alleged unfair use of criminal background checks for job applicants, months after warning companies about how such screenings can discriminate against African Americas.

The suits were filed June 11 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which last year issued new guidelines that cautioned against rejecting minority applicants who have committed a crime and recommended businesses eliminate policies that exclude people from employment based on a criminal record.

The suits have re-ignited concerns over such issues as potential federal overreach, the overlap of state and federal law and companies losing their rights to protect customers, workers and assets while trying to adhere to fair hiring practices.



(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...

TOPICS:

Crime/Corruption

Government

News/Current Events

US: South Carolina

KEYWORDS:

banglist

dollargeneral

holderspeople

nointegrity

nojustice

nolaw

obama4criminals

obamaracist

racism





To: Hojczyk

General Dollar doesn’t have the IRS or Justice Dept on their payroll. Pray for America to Wake Up



To: Hojczyk

This stuff no longer has any meaning. The law means what they say it means. Which is to say that there is no law. If they do not like you, then you are racist and are in violation of federal statues. If they do like you, then you are entitled to big government checks because that is what the law requires. I'm watching this trainwreck of a society and I am in awe.



To: Hojczyk

I think it’s much more racist to imply that African Americans are all criminals.



To: Hojczyk

Generally....the most stupid thing that a small business can do....is simply hire someone for a responsible job involving money and the cash register....without checking the guy’s background. Course, no one in the EEOC has ever run a business...so they wouldn’t understand that.



To: Hojczyk

Background checks would weed out most Democrats from consideration.



To: Hojczyk

This article is a lie. Businesses HAVE to be able to do background checks prior to employment. If this is actually taking place and the government wins, then they have to drop background checks for schoolteachers. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.



by 7 posted onby MeneMeneTekelUpharsin (Freedom is the freedom to discipline yourself so others don't have to do it for you.)

To: Hojczyk

This should be laughed out of court. After all, how many felons does the Federal gubermint employ? Oh, wait. That would be the Cabinet. Nevermind.



by 8 posted onby NonValueAdded (Unindicted Co-conspirators: The Mainstream Media)

To: Hojczyk

Guidelines by commissions are now the law of the land. Laws made at the wave of a hand, anywhere, anytime for any reason.



by 9 posted onby TADSLOS (The Event Horizon has come and gone. Buckle up and hang on.)

To: Hojczyk

but of course if an employee assaults or rapes a customer, Dollar General will still be sued



To: Hojczyk

Just one more issue ripe for exploiting by the next Republican candidate for President. If we can find one with a spine.



by 11 posted onby Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Texas Eagle)

To: Hojczyk

Non-union companies. Need I say more?



To: faithhopecharity

Go ahead and finish it.... for hiring a felon of assault or rape..



by 13 posted onby eyedigress ((zOld storm chaser from the west)/ ?s)

To: Hojczyk

There have been several attempts at this. At one point the government didn’t want background checks until after all the interviews. The reasoning was that “qualified” candidates were not even getting the interviews because they had criminal records. If a candidate is qualified then you find out he has a criminal record you are supposed to evaluate what impact that might have. For example, he was sentenced to five years for assault. But he could run your register and count your receipts because that’s not going to involve assault. The liberal thinking is, this poor guy should not suffer for one bad decision. He is, after all, paid in full. He is no different now than anybody who does not have a record. My own experience is that ex-criminals are still criminals they just haven’t been caught at it. Poor decision making is part of who they are. Granted, some people change. But do you want to risk your business on it when there are thousands of honest people who have kept their nose clean vying for the same job?



To: Hojczyk

If you are a truck driver, train engineer, boat captain, pilot, etc. you will have to have a fairly clean record and pass an FBI background check to transport hazardous materials. Maybe somebody needs to sue the feds.



by 15 posted onby umgud (2A can't survive dem majorities)

To: Hojczyk

"Its now unlawful to discriminate against applicants who have committed a crime." How much more of this are the American people going to tolerate?



To: Hojczyk

Counter-sue, since the gov’t conducts background checks for millions of employees and contractors.



by 17 posted onby G Larry (Let his days be few; and let another take his office. Psalms 109:8)

To: Hojczyk

When the law no longer protects you from the corrupt,

but protects the corrupt from you

- you know your nation is doomed." -Ayn Rand



To: TADSLOS

Guidelines by commissions are now the law of the land. Laws made at the wave of a hand, anywhere, anytime for any reason.



"As the Secretary shall determine" appears in Obamacare thousands of times, giving this...woman...the power to decide who lives, who dies, who suffers and how much. Nation of laws, uh huh.





"As the Secretary shall determine" appears in Obamacare thousands of times, giving this...woman...the power to decide who lives, who dies, who suffers and how much. Nation of laws, uh huh.

by 19 posted onby LostInBayport (When there are more people riding in the cart than there are pulling it, the cart stops moving...)

To: stylecouncilor

SC ping....



Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794

FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson