Some Companies using criminal records or bad credit reports for job screening tactics challenged as illegal

WASHINGTON Companies using criminal records or bad credit reports to screen out job applicants might run afoul of anti-discrimination laws as the government steps up scrutiny of hiring policies that can hurt blacks and Hispanics.A blanket refusal to hire workers based on criminal records or credit problems can be illegal if it has a disparate impact on racial minorities, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The agency enforces the nation’s employment discrimination laws.”Our sense is that the problem is snowballing because of the technology allowing these checks to be done with a fair amount of ease,” said Carol Miaskoff, assistant legal counsel at the EEOC.

With millions of adults having criminal records – anything from underage drinking to homicide – a growing number of job seekers are having a rough time finding work. And more companies are trying to screen out people with bankruptcies, court judgments or other credit problems just as those numbers have swollen during the recession.Just ask Adrienne Hudson, a single mother who says she was fired from her new job as a bus driver at First Transit in Oakland, Calif., when the company found out she had been convicted seven years earlier for welfare fraud.

Hudson, 44, is fighting back with a lawsuit alleging the company’s hiring practice discriminates against black and Latino job seekers, who have arrest and conviction rates far greater than whites. A spokesman for First Transit said the company does not comment on pending litigation.”People make mistakes,” said Hudson, who is black, “but when they correct their mistake, they should not be punished again outside of the court system.”

Justice Department statistics show that 38 percent of the U.S. prison population is black, compared with about 12 percent of the general population. In 2008, African-Americans were about six times more likely to be incarcerated than whites. The incarceration rate for Latinos was 2.3 times higher than whites.If criminal histories are taken into account, the EEOC says employers must also consider the nature of the job, the seriousness of the offense and how long ago it occurred. For example, it may make sense to disqualify a bank employee with a past conviction for embezzlement, but not necessarily for a DUI.

Most companies tend to be more nuanced when they look at credit reports, weeding out those applicants with bad credit only if they seek senior positions or jobs dealing with money. But if the screening process weeds out more black and Hispanic applicants than whites, an employer needs to show how the credit information is related to the job.

About 73 percent of major employers report that they always check on applicants’ criminal records, while 19 percent do so for select job candidates, according to a 2010 survey by the Society for Human Resource Management.The same survey found that almost half of major companies conduct credit checks for some job candidates, such as those who would be in a position of financial trust. Another 13 percent perform credit checks for all potential workers.

Last fall, the EEOC sent a strong message to employers when it filed a class-action lawsuit against Freeman Companies, a Dallas-based events planning firm, alleging the company discriminated against blacks, Hispanics and males by rejecting job seekers based on credit history and criminal records. Freeman has denied the charges.The growth of online databases and a multimillion dollar background check industry have made it easy for employers to find out reams of information about potential hires. Companies see the checks as another way to weed out unsavory candidates, keep a safe work environment and prevent negligent hiring claims.

“Past indiscretions may be an indicator of future behavior, especially in the criminal context,” said Pamela Devata, a Chicago employment lawyer who has represented companies trying to comply with EEOC’s requirements.Devata said employers nationwide have seen the EEOC become more active in investigating employer hiring practices. The scrutiny has caused many companies to reevaluate their screening process and move to a case-by-case standard.

Ariela Migdal, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Women’s Rights Project in New York, said a person might have a blemish that has nothing to do with the job he or she is seeking. And records sometimes are inaccurate or not updated to reflect that someone arrested later had charges dropped or a conviction overturned or expunged, she said.”Somebody with an old conviction that has been rehabilitated doesn’t have any greater likelihood of committing a crime, so its irrational to use that against them,” Migdal said.

Ron Heintzman, president of the Amalgamated Transit Union, said he’s seen dozens of job candidates disqualified “for reasons that were just ridiculous.” His union, with 13,000 members in First Transit, is paying for the lawsuit that Hudson filed last month against the company which operates bus service in Oakland and several other major cities.

In Hudson’s case, she was fired after just two days on the job as a bus driver because of a 7-year-old felony welfare fraud conviction. The conviction was later dismissed under California law, but her lawsuit, filed in federal court last month, claims the company has a policy to deny employment no matter how old the conviction, the applicant’s prior work history or whether it is related to the job.

(This version CORRECTS name of American Civil Liberties Union.)(AP)

Eighty demonstrators against Arizona's tough-on-illegal-immigration policies trickled out of jails here Friday

Reporting from Phoenix Eighty demonstrators against Arizona’s tough-on-illegal-immigration policies trickled out of jails here Friday, as a local sheriff continued one of his controversial operations that critics contend targets Latinos.The protesters had been arrested Thursday, the day the state’s controversial immigration law took effect and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio launched his 17th sweep against illegal immigrants.

On Friday, Arpaio announced that three illegal immigrants were arrested in the sweep. During such operations, his deputies stop people for sometimes minor violations and check their immigration status.A federal judge had barred most of the immigration law, SB 1070, from being implemented, but that didn’t stop hundreds of protesters from filling the streets and engaging in civil disobedience on Thursday. Twenty-three were arrested at Arpaio’s main downtown jail for blocking the entrance. Their demonstration forced the sheriff to delay his sweep for several hours.Activists on Friday boasted that they had slowed down the tough-talking Arpaio.”Families were not separated; the community was not terrorized,” said Carlos Garcia of civil rights group Puente, who was arrested Thursday.

Friday afternoon, several activists blocked the command center Arpaio set up for his sweep, leading to more arrests for civil disobedience. “They want to go to jail, so that’s where they’re going,” Arpaio said. “They want to keep coming, we’ll lock them up.”Also Friday, Gov. Jan Brewer said the Legislature might “tweak” SB 1070 when it convenes in January to address the federal judge’s concerns about the law.

For example, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton had singled out a provision requiring that every person arrested in the state be held until their immigration status is determined. Brewer’s lawyer had told the judge that the sentence was “inartfully” written and should apply only to suspected illegal immigrants.The law was already significantly narrowed once before in response to pressure from opponents. After Brewer signed the legislation in April, she accepted last-minute revisions from the Legislature. The law had required police to determine the immigration status of people they interact with whom they suspect are in the country illegally. Now it requires them to check only people they stop and believe are illegal immigrants. (Ap – The Los Angeles Times )

Facebook unrestrained amid NY ownership lawsuit

Facebook may continue business as usual while it fights a New York man’s claim he has a contract with founder Mark Zuckerberg that entitles him to 84 percent ownership of the world’s leading social networking site, a U.S. court heard on Tuesday.Paul Ceglia of Wellsville, New York, sued Zuckerberg and Facebook Inc last month claiming a 2003 contract with Zuckerberg to develop and design a website now entitled him to a majority stake in the privately-held company.

A New York State judge in Allegany County put a temporary restraining order on company asset transfers, but that order was suspended on June 30 by Judge Richard Arcara of federal court in Buffalo, New York.Arcara decided at a hearing on Tuesday that his ruling should remain in place, Facebook and a lawyer for Ceglia said.

“We have reached an agreement with respect to the progress of the next stage of the litigation,” said Ceglia’s lawyer, Terrence Connors.In a statement, the Palo Alto, California-based company said: “We are pleased that the court’s decision to stay the temporary restraining order remains in place and will continue to fight this frivolous claim.”The purported contract was dated April 2003 and ended in February 2004, according to Ceglia’s complaint, which had a two-page “‘Work for Hire’ Contract” attached.”He has contract. The contract is clean and clear,” Connors said by telephone after the hearing.Connors said he argued in court that Zuckerberg had signed the contract.

“The judge asked the question of the defense and they said they were looking into it,” Connors said. “I suspect that, if their client did not sign it, they would have made that clear.”In court documents, lawyers for Zuckerberg and Facebook wrote that Ceglia “sat on his allowed rights for over six years” and should not be permitted “to say that now, all of a sudden, he requires immediate relief.”The company, which has nearly 500 million users and 1,000 employees, argued the “purported contract itself is wrought with irregularities, inconsistencies and undefined terms.”Zuckerberg was a freshman at Harvard University in Massachusetts at the time of the purported contract.

Facebook’s court papers noted that last December a state prosecutor accused a wood-pellet fuel company that Ceglia owned with his wife of taking $200,000 from customers and failing to deliver products or refunds.The company is also defending a claim in federal court in Delaware that the most basic functions of its website infringe a patent held by a little-known company [ID:nN16102757].

Facebook ranks among the Web’s most popular sites, alongside Google Inc, Yahoo Inc and Microsoft Corp. Facebook is also one of the most closely watched Web companies by investors eager for a blockbuster initial public offering.The cases are Paul Ceglia v Zuckerberg & Facebook, New York State Supreme Court, Allegany County, No. 038798/2010 and Ceglia v Zuckerberg et al, U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, No. 10-00569.(Reuters)

Latin American nations bid to join Mexico in Arizona case

PHOENIX Seven other Latin American countries want to join Mexico in supporting a lawsuit challenging Arizona’s immigration enforcement law.Bolivia, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Paraguay and Peru filed separate, nearly identical motions to join Mexico’s legal brief supporting the lawsuit filed by U.S. civil rights and other advocacy groups.A federal judge formally accepted Mexico’s filing July 1 but did not immediately rule on the latest motions filed late last week.

Mexico says the law would lead to racial profiling and hinder trade, tourism and the fight against drug trafficking.The law is to take effect June 29. It requires that police conducting traffic stops or questioning people about possible legal violations ask them about their immigration status if there is “reasonable suspicion” that they’re in the country illegally. (AP)

Arizona police officials warned officers not to use race or ethnicity when enforcing the state's new immigration law

PHOENIX Arizona police officials warned officers not to use race or ethnicity when enforcing the state’s new immigration law, saying that the country is watching their every move.In a new training video released Thursday, the officials said opponents of the law may secretly videotape officers making traffic stops, trying to ensnare them and prove that they’re racially profiling Hispanics.”Without a doubt, we’re going to be accused of racial profiling no matter what we do on this,” Tucson Police Chief Roberto Villasenor tells officers on the video from Arizona’s police licensing board. The video is designed to teach officers how to determine when they can ask a person for proof they’re in the country legally.Officers can consider that someone doesn’t speak English well, is wearing several layers of clothing in a hot climate or is hanging out in an area where illegal immigrants are known to look for work, according to the video.

They can take into account that a person doesn’t have identification, tried to run away, is traveling in an overcrowded vehicle, or seems out of place and unfamiliar with the area.But the stakes for making a mistake are high: Officers can be fired if they start asking questions because of a person’s race, then lie about it later, the video warns.”It is also clear that the actions of Arizona officers will never come under this level of scrutiny again,” said Lyle Mann, executive director of the training agency. “Each and every one of you will now carry the reputation for the entire Arizona law enforcement community with you every day.

“Arizona’s law, sparked by anger over a surging population of illegal immigrants in the border state, generally requires officers enforcing another law to question a person’s immigration status if there’s a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally.Officers are told that the law applies only to a stop, detention or arrest – not when a person flags down an officer. Police are not required to ask crime victims or witnesses about their status, and anyone who shows a valid Arizona driver’s license is presumed to be in the country legally.The law restricts the use of race, color or national origin as the basis for triggering immigration questions.

But civil rights groups and some police officials argue that officers will still assume that illegal immigrants look Hispanic.Arizona’s 460,000 illegal immigrants are almost all Hispanic. Yet Arizona also has nearly 2 million Hispanics who are U.S. citizens or legal residents, about 30 percent of the state’s population.In the training video, an expert advises officers to ask themselves whether they’d reach the same conclusion about a Hispanic person’s immigration status if the subject were white or black.”If any officer goes into a situation with a previous mindset that one race or one ethnicity is not equal to another’s, then they have no business being a law enforcement officer in this state,” Arizona Police Association president Brian Livingston says in the video.

The video and supporting paperwork will be sent to all 170 Arizona police agencies.Police bosses will decide the best way to teach their forces. There is no requirement that all 15,000 Arizona police officers complete the training before the law takes effect July 29.Gov. Jan Brewer ordered the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board to develop the training when she signed the law April 23.Opponents have challenged the measure as unconstitutional and have asked that a federal court block it from taking effect. U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton plans to hear arguments on the request later this month.

President Barack Obama on Thursday called the law an understandable byproduct of public frustration with the government’s inability to tighten the system, but also said it is ill-conceived, divisive and would put undue pressure on local authorities.

The law was passed in part with the lobbying muscle of unions representing rank-and-file police officers who argued that they should be allowed to arrest illegal immigrants they come across.It was opposed by police bosses who worried it would be expensive to implement and would destroy the trust they’ve developed in Hispanic neighborhoods. (AP)

Arizona to be Sued by US Government

Arizona Immigration Law SB1070 Text 2010 Update  Arizona to be Sued by US Government. The US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been quoted as saying that the Department of Justice could be planning to sue the state government over their controversial immigration law, citing that it is unconstitutional.Arizona’s law makes it a criminal offense to be present in the state without proper immigration or resident status.  It requires law enforcement to inquire about immigration status if probable cause to believe that someone is in the country illegally exists.

It also requires that everyone – citizens and immigrants alike, have proof of their status on their person at all times.  This can be accomplished with something as simple as a driver’s license.Many fear that the law will cause racial profiling at massive levels. Even the President has hinted that the law could cause issues for some immigrants.

Governor Jan Brewer plans on fighting hard against any lawsuit.  She found out about a potential lawsuit through a June 8 interview between Clinton and a TV station in Ecuador.  Brewer was outraged, and the AP reports that the governor said “If our own government intends to sue our state to prevent illegal immigration enforcement, the least it can do is inform us before it informs the citizens of another nation.Whether or not a lawsuit will be successful is something that will likely take months – if not a year or more – to determine.  This fight would go all the way to the Supreme Court and set important precedent over what will happen with immigration law.  This is definitely an issue that will polarize natural born citizens and immigrants alike. (AP)

Arizona lawmaker takes aim at automatic citizenship

PHOENIX  Emboldened by passage of the nation’s toughest law against illegal immigration, the Arizona politician who sponsored the measure now wants to deny U.S. citizenship to children born in this country to undocumented parents.Legal scholars laugh out loud at Republican state Sen. Russell Pearce’s proposal and warn that it would be blatantly unconstitutional, since the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the U.S.

But Pearce brushes aside such concerns. And given the charged political atmosphere in Arizona, and public anger over what many regard as a failure by the federal government to secure the border, some politicians think the idea has a chance of passage.”I think the time is right,” said state Rep. John Kavanagh, a Republican from suburban Phoenix who is chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee. “Federal inaction is unacceptable, so the states have to start the process.”

Earlier this year, the Legislature set off a storm of protests around the country when it passed a law that directs police to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect is in the country illegally. The law also makes it a state crime to be an illegal immigrant. The measure, which takes effect July 29 unless blocked in court, has inflamed the national debate over immigration and led to boycotts against the state.

An estimated 10.8 million illegal immigrants were living in the U.S. as of January 2009, according to the Homeland Security Department. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that as of 2008, there were 3.8 million illegal immigrants in this country whose children are U.S. citizens.

Pearce, who has yet to draft the legislation, proposes that the state of Arizona no longer issue birth certificates unless at least one parent can prove legal status. He contends that the practice of granting citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. encourages illegal immigrants to come to this country to give birth and secure full rights for their children.”We create the greatest inducement for breaking our laws,” he said.

The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War, reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” But Pearce argues that the amendment was meant to protect black people.”It’s been hijacked and abused,” he said. “There is no provision in the 14th Amendment for the declaration of citizenship to children born here to illegal aliens.”

John McGinnis, a conservative law professor at Northwestern University, said Pearce’s interpretation is “just completely wrong.” The “plain meaning” of the amendment is clear, he said.Senate candidate Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican and darling of the tea party movement, made headlines last month after he told a Russian TV station that he favors denying citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.

A similar bill was introduced at the federal level in 2009 by former Rep. Nathan Deal, a Georgia Republican, but it has gone nowhere.The Federation for American Immigration Reform, based in Washington, said Pearce’s idea would stop immigrants from traveling to the U.S. to give birth.

“Essentially we are talking about people who have absolutely no connection whatever with this country,” spokesman Ira Mehlman said. “The whole idea of citizenship means that you have some connection other than mere happenstance that you were born on U.S. soil.”Citizenship as a birthright is rare elsewhere in the world. Many countries require at least one parent to be a citizen or legal resident.

Adopting such a practice in the U.S. would be not only unconstitutional but also impractical and expensive, said Michele Waslin, a policy analyst with the pro-immigrant Immigration Policy Center in Washington.”Every single parent who has a child would have to go through this bureaucratic process of proving their own citizenship and therefore proving their child’s citizenship,” she said.

Araceli Viveros, 27, and her husband, Saul, 34, are illegal immigrants from the Mexican state of Guerrero. He has been in Phoenix for 20 years, she for 10, and their 2- and 9-year-old children are U.S. citizens.”I am so proud my children were born here. They can learn English and keep studying,” Viveros said in Spanish.

She said her husband has been working hard in Phoenix as a landscaper, and their children deserve to be citizens. The lawmaker’s proposal “is very bad,” she said. “It’s changing the Constitution, and some children won’t have the same rights as other children.”(AP)

kids protester message to Obama,"why do you allow brown to be Discriminated"

Gov. Jan Brewer has removed the state's attorney general from defending Arizona's new immigration-enforcement law

PHOENIX Gov. Jan Brewer has removed the state’s attorney general from defending Arizona’s new immigration-enforcement law, accusing him of colluding with the U.S. Justice Department as it weighs whether to challenge the law in court.Brewer, a Republican, said she took action after state Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat and her potential challenger for re-election, met Friday with Justice Department lawyers, who then met with her legal advisers.

Goddard, who has publicly stated he opposes the law but vowed to defend the state in court as its chief lawyer, said he told the Justice Department team “we need solutions from Washington, not more lawsuits.”Brewer expressed similar sentiments after her legal advisers met with the federal lawyers, vowing to defend the state to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.

But she accused Goddard of a lack of resolve on immigration matters and called his meeting with the Justice Department team a “curious coordination.”The immigration law she signed gave her the power to coordinate the state’s legal defense because the Legislature saw a “lack of confidence” in Goddard’s willingness to defend the law, she said.

The U.S. attorney general, Eric Holder Jr., is nearing a decision on whether to challenge the law, which gives the state and local police broad authority to enforce federal immigration law. It allows the police to check the immigration status of people they suspect are illegal immigrants whom they have stopped for another reason.Holder has said he worries the law may intrude on federal immigration authority and lead to profiling. On Thursday he met with police chiefs who oppose the law as divisive and a detriment to getting immigrants to report crime and cooperate with criminal investigations.

Meanwhile, thousands from around the country marched to the state capital, Phoenix, on Saturday to protest the new law, set to become effective July 29.Opponents of the law suspended their boycott against Arizona and bused in protesters from around the country.Midtown Phoenix buzzed with protesters carrying signs and American flags. Dozens of police officers were on standby along the route of the five-mile march, and helicopters hovered overhead.

Supporters of the law expected to draw thousands to a rally of their own later Saturday at a baseball stadium in suburban Tempe, encouraging like-minded Americans to “buycott” Arizona by planning vacations in the state.Some opponents of the law have encouraged people to cancel conventions in the state and avoid doing business with Arizona-based companies, hoping the economic pressure forces lawmakers to repeal the law.But Alfredo Gutierrez, chairman of the boycott committee of Hispanic civil-rights group Somos America, said the boycott doesn’t apply to people coming to resist the law. Opponents said they secured warehouse space for people to sleep on cots instead of staying in hotels.

“The point was to be here for this march to show support for these folks, then we’re out,” said Jose Vargas, a union representative for New York City teachers. “We’re not spending a dime here.”Supporters of the law sought to counteract the economic damage of boycotts by bringing supporters into the state.

“Arizona, we feel, is America’s Alamo in the fight against illegal and dangerous entry into the United States,” said Gina Loudon of St. Louis, who is organizing the “buycott.””Our border guards and all of Arizona law enforcement are the undermanned, undergunned, taxed-to-the-limit front-line defenders trying to hold back the invasion,” she said.

Arizona immigration law protested at Florida

The growing national protests against the controversial new Arizona immigration control law came to Miami Gardens on Monday night.South Florida immigrant rights activists rallied at Sun Life Stadium, holding up protest signs prior to the game between the Arizona Diamondbacks and the Florida Marlins.More than 50 protesters gathered at the stadium at 5 p.m., waving signs and chanting slogans as spectators drove into the parking lot.

“No to racism!” the protesters screamed. “No to discrimination.”Their signs read “Strike Out SB1070” on one side and “Go Marlins” on the other.SB1070 refers to the legislative number of the Arizona law.One demonstrator in favor of the Arizona law, Mark Kleiman, of Hollywood, also held a sign reading “Go Marlins” and “Protect the Border.”

OTHER ACTIONS

The stadium protest capped a day of actions and events by immigrant rights activists opposing the Arizona law that empowers police officers to question a person on his or her immigration status and file criminal charges if the person is not legally in the country.Perhaps the most significant action Monday was a federal lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and a coalition of civil rights groups challenging the constitutionality of Arizona’s law.

The groups branded the new law “extreme” because it “invites the racial profiling of people of color, violates the First Amendment and interferes with federal law.”Lucas Guttentag, director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, said the law has tarnished Arizona’s image.

`SHAMEFUL’

“It’s a shameful and un-American law,” Guttentag said in a telephone news conference.“It turns `show me your papers’ into the Arizona state motto.”

Meanwhile, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People which joined in the lawsuit, said in a statement that it will not host any events in Arizona and urged Major League Baseball to move the 2011 All-Star Game elsewhere.And on Tuesday, the Washington-based group Fair Immigration Reform Movement or FAIR plans to announce an a campaign of civil disobedience to pressure the Obama administration into championing immigration reform.

NATIONAL DEBATE

The Arizona law, signed by Gov. Jan. Brewer on April 23, has reignited the immigration reform debate, which previously focused on whether to legalize an estimated 10.8 million undocumented immigrants.Monday’s protest was part of a broader movement aimed at persuading Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig to move the 2011 All-Star Game from its currently scheduled location in Phoenix — if the Arizona immigration law is not withdrawn or modified.