J
JoeDali
Guest
What is the name of your state? Colorado (Aressted in California)
I was dismissed from a government contract job at the BLM at the Denver Federal Center yesterday.
The FPS specialist found an arrest on my record for petty theft and harassment in Ventura California from 1989. The case went to trial and I was found Not Guilty by a jury.
The state of CA does not keep records around after 5 years for misdemeanors. Therefore I have no record of the disposition.
The gentleman at the FSA DFC, [Clayton Porter] is playing hardball and won't let me back in the doors.
My public defender at the time was Linda Kinney Johnson, but I can't find her in a BAR lookup.Not Guilty
The FPS gentleman said if I showed him proof of my Not Guilty verdict he woudl let me back in.
My attornet friend in Chicago is helping me and found some info on this topic:
DISCRIMINATION CONCERNS
*690 Employers may wish to conduct a credit report or a criminal record check before hiring an applicant for a particular position. It is important to remember that, as anti-discrimination laws apply to all phases of the employment process, including application and interview, credit checks should be administered only when there is a specific, business related-purpose. In Johnson v. Pike, 332 F. Supp. 490 (C.D. Cal. 1971), a U.S. District Court in California held that, because racial minorities are disproportionately from a lower social and economic strata, they are more likely to be subject to adverse credit action. [FN40] Given that fact, any employer wishing to make employment decisions based on credit report data, must have a legitimate business purpose. "The policy or practice may be adopted in good faith with no intent to discriminate, may be racially neutral on its face and may be objectively and fairly applied; it is nonetheless interdicted by Title VII if the consequence of the policy or practice is to discriminate." [FN41] Generally, if the position sought requires dealing with large amounts of cash, includes a fiduciary duty to the employer, requires the employee to be covered by a fiduciary bond, or provides for the employee to have security clearance, obtaining a credit report would be acceptable.
Additionally, the EEOC released a Policy Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest in 1990. [FN42] In it, the Commission took the position that an employer's blanket reliance on records of arrest without conviction to exclude individuals from employment opportunities may violate Title VII. The EEOC Policy Guidance noted that, on a national level, African-Americans are disproportionately subject to arrest, as based on FBI statistics, and the arrest rate for African-Americans is nearly twice their representation in the population. Such numbers, according to the EEOC, justify the conclusion of disparate impact. Where there are no state laws forbidding employers from considering arrest records, an employer may consider such records but, where there was no conviction, the employer must not only consider the relationship between the arrest and the position sought, but the likelihood that the applicant actually committed the crime. The EEOC considers four factors when making a determination about the presence of discrimination: "(1) the nature and gravity of the offense; (2) the time elapsed since the arrest(s); (3) the nature of the employment sought; and (4) whether the arrest record reflects the employee's conduct." [FN43] Conviction records, however, may be used to justify denying employment so long as the employer has a legitimate business necessity. [FN44] According to the EEOC, "Business necessity can be established where the employee or applicant is engaged in conduct which is particularly egregious or related to the position in question." [FN45]
Overall, when it comes to background checks, employers should remember to administer the checks evenhandedly with respect to all applicants, as investigating some applicants more thoroughly than others can be grounds for a discrimination claim. [FN46] Additionally, employers should note EEOC Regulations which dictate that, when it comes to background checks, "The use of an employment agency does not relieve an employer or labor organization or other user of its responsibilities under Federal law." [FN47] Thus, to the extent that employment screening is done by someone other than the employer, the employer should be careful to hire a reputable employment agency.
Its amazing this country can open the doors to Islamic terrorists everyday for school, training, traveling, but shut the doors on an honest law abiding citizen who was found Not Guilty of something 14 years ago. I am so distraught, someone give me some good advice.
I have been in contact with Ventura County records and they have nothing on this case.
Is my next step the DOJ?
Does the DOJ keep misdemeanor stuff around?
Thank you so much,
Joel H.
I was dismissed from a government contract job at the BLM at the Denver Federal Center yesterday.
The FPS specialist found an arrest on my record for petty theft and harassment in Ventura California from 1989. The case went to trial and I was found Not Guilty by a jury.
The state of CA does not keep records around after 5 years for misdemeanors. Therefore I have no record of the disposition.
The gentleman at the FSA DFC, [Clayton Porter] is playing hardball and won't let me back in the doors.
My public defender at the time was Linda Kinney Johnson, but I can't find her in a BAR lookup.Not Guilty
The FPS gentleman said if I showed him proof of my Not Guilty verdict he woudl let me back in.
My attornet friend in Chicago is helping me and found some info on this topic:
DISCRIMINATION CONCERNS
*690 Employers may wish to conduct a credit report or a criminal record check before hiring an applicant for a particular position. It is important to remember that, as anti-discrimination laws apply to all phases of the employment process, including application and interview, credit checks should be administered only when there is a specific, business related-purpose. In Johnson v. Pike, 332 F. Supp. 490 (C.D. Cal. 1971), a U.S. District Court in California held that, because racial minorities are disproportionately from a lower social and economic strata, they are more likely to be subject to adverse credit action. [FN40] Given that fact, any employer wishing to make employment decisions based on credit report data, must have a legitimate business purpose. "The policy or practice may be adopted in good faith with no intent to discriminate, may be racially neutral on its face and may be objectively and fairly applied; it is nonetheless interdicted by Title VII if the consequence of the policy or practice is to discriminate." [FN41] Generally, if the position sought requires dealing with large amounts of cash, includes a fiduciary duty to the employer, requires the employee to be covered by a fiduciary bond, or provides for the employee to have security clearance, obtaining a credit report would be acceptable.
Additionally, the EEOC released a Policy Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest in 1990. [FN42] In it, the Commission took the position that an employer's blanket reliance on records of arrest without conviction to exclude individuals from employment opportunities may violate Title VII. The EEOC Policy Guidance noted that, on a national level, African-Americans are disproportionately subject to arrest, as based on FBI statistics, and the arrest rate for African-Americans is nearly twice their representation in the population. Such numbers, according to the EEOC, justify the conclusion of disparate impact. Where there are no state laws forbidding employers from considering arrest records, an employer may consider such records but, where there was no conviction, the employer must not only consider the relationship between the arrest and the position sought, but the likelihood that the applicant actually committed the crime. The EEOC considers four factors when making a determination about the presence of discrimination: "(1) the nature and gravity of the offense; (2) the time elapsed since the arrest(s); (3) the nature of the employment sought; and (4) whether the arrest record reflects the employee's conduct." [FN43] Conviction records, however, may be used to justify denying employment so long as the employer has a legitimate business necessity. [FN44] According to the EEOC, "Business necessity can be established where the employee or applicant is engaged in conduct which is particularly egregious or related to the position in question." [FN45]
Overall, when it comes to background checks, employers should remember to administer the checks evenhandedly with respect to all applicants, as investigating some applicants more thoroughly than others can be grounds for a discrimination claim. [FN46] Additionally, employers should note EEOC Regulations which dictate that, when it comes to background checks, "The use of an employment agency does not relieve an employer or labor organization or other user of its responsibilities under Federal law." [FN47] Thus, to the extent that employment screening is done by someone other than the employer, the employer should be careful to hire a reputable employment agency.
Its amazing this country can open the doors to Islamic terrorists everyday for school, training, traveling, but shut the doors on an honest law abiding citizen who was found Not Guilty of something 14 years ago. I am so distraught, someone give me some good advice.
I have been in contact with Ventura County records and they have nothing on this case.
Is my next step the DOJ?
Does the DOJ keep misdemeanor stuff around?
Thank you so much,
Joel H.