EEOC charges Pepsi with black and Hispanic criminality
Jan 13th, 2012 by Unamused
The doctrine of diversity inches ever closer to the Beyond Parody event horizon: the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has charged Pepsi with black and Hispanic criminality.
From the Washington Post, January 11, 2012 (via American Renaissance):
Pepsi Beverages Co. will pay $3.1 million to settle federal charges of race discrimination for using criminal background checks to screen out job applicants — even if they weren’t convicted of a crime.
How can a criminal background check be “race discrimination”? Oh, that’s right: because blacks and Hispanics are demonstrably more criminal than whites.
The settlement announced Wednesday with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is part of a national government crackdown on hiring policies that can hurt blacks and Hispanics.
The EEOC will always uncover exciting new forms of “race discrimination” because the agency exists solely for the purpose of advancing the interests of certain designated victim groups, including blacks and Hispanics, but obviously not whites. Do not mistake this for fighting injustice (laudable), achieving equality (hopeless) or even (the rather more modest) enforcing anti-discrimination laws.
Not caring a whit about racial discrimination against whites, in the absence of discrimination against minorities, the EEOC will just invent some, then crack down on it. Blacks and Hispanics are more criminal than whites? Okay, refusing to hire convicted criminals is “race discrimination” now. Blacks and Hispanics are less intelligent than whites? Fine, testing your prospective employees’ intelligence is “race discrimination” as well. Blacks and Hispanics are too incompetent to be police or firefighters? No problem, failing to fill up police and fire departments with incompetent minorities can be “race discrimination” too.
EEOC officials said the company’s policy of not hiring workers with arrest records disproportionately excluded more than 300 black applicants.
The company’s policy only “disproportionately excluded” blacks because blacks disproportionately commit crime. For example, between 2004 and 2008, blacks committed 60% of robberies (nationwide) and accounted for 56% of robbery arrests; committed 35% of rapes and accounted for 33% of rape arrests; and committed 30% of aggravated assaults and accounted for 34% of aggravated assault arrests.
Furthermore, the black arrest rates (per capita) for robbery and rape were much lower than the black offending rates: in order for arrest rates to matching offending rates, the police would have to arrest 49% more blacks for robbery and 37% more blacks for rape. (The black arrest and offending rates for aggravated assault are equal.)
How would the EEOC respond to my analysis? We can make some educated guesses:
- “NCVS? Never heard of it.”
- “No, of course we don’t care.”
- “Yes, of course you’re a racist for bringing it up. See you in court.”
Using arrest and conviction records to deny employment can be illegal if it’s irrelevant for the job, according to the EEOC, which enforces the nation’s employment discrimination laws. The agency says such blanket policies can limit job opportunities for minorities with higher arrest and conviction rates than whites.
It is difficult to imagine how a conviction for a property crime, let alone a violent crime, could be irrelevant to hiring. Do jobs not generally involve property of some kind? It doesn’t matter: the EEOC only dangles this red herring of supposedly unnecessary criminal background checks because blacks and Hispanics are more criminal than whites.
If the races were reversed, and whites were more criminal than blacks and Hispanics (absurd, I know, but bear with me), the EEOC would make it illegal not to use arrest and conviction records to deny employment even if they were somehow irrelevant to the job, because to do otherwise would benefit whites at the expense of blacks and Hispanics. And that would be — say it with me — “race discrimination.”
Again, the EEOC exists solely to advance the interests of certain designated victim groups, including blacks and Hispanics, but not whites.
The company has since adopted a new criminal background policy and plans to make jobs available to victims of the old policy if they are still interested in jobs at Pepsi and are qualified for the openings.
…
“I commend Pepsi’s willingness to reexamine its policy and modify it to ensure that unwarranted roadblocks to employment are removed,” EEOC Chairwoman Jacqueline Berrien said in a statement.
It is a curious sort of “willingness” that manifests only after the government files charges of “race discrimination” against you. Anyway, the important thing is that now Pepsi has to hire black and Hispanic criminals. Huzzah?
Pepsi Beverage spokesman Dave DeCecco said the company’s criminal background check policy has always been neutral and that the EEOC did not find any intentional discrimination. He said after the issue was first raised in 2006, the company worked with the EEOC to revise its background check process “to create a workplace that is as diverse and inclusive as possible.”
“We are committed to promoting diversity and inclusion and we have been widely recognized for our efforts for decades,” DeCecco said.
He said the new policy would take a more “individualized approach” in considering the applicant’s criminal history against the particular job being sought.
So close, Dave. Here’s what you should have said: “Our company’s criminal background check policy has always been neutral. If blacks and Hispanics insist on disproportionately committing crime, that is not our problem.”
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.
But increased federal scrutiny of such policies has led some companies to reevaluate their hiring process. Pamela Devata, a Chicago employment lawyer who has represented companies trying to comply with EEOC’s requirements, said there has been an uptick over the past year in EEOC charges over the use of background checks.
“The EEOC has taken a very aggressive enforcement posture on the use of criminal background and criminal history,” Devata said.
Of course it has. The EEOC will not be satisfied until every company in America is so terrified of being charged with “race discrimination” that they hire every black and Hispanic applicant, no matter how unqualified, incompetent, criminal, or just plain unnecessary to the business.
Note the contradiction here: on one hand DWLs tell us that “race is just a construct.” And yet here were being told by the US government that race is bound up with criminality. Of course, the EEOC does not quite put it that way. If someone were to say in public, “Blacks commit a higher proportion of violent crime than whites,” then I am sure the EEOC would be screaming (ooooh!) “racism!”
It is really becoming apparent that (oooooh!) “racism” is simply becoming a form of mass hysteria, one enforced by a growing pathological government.
Of course, the EEOC does not quite put it that way.
That’s the problem. The government and mainstream media deny (or refuse to mention) race differences in crime rates, meaning offending rates. Instead, they assume no such differences exist, then point to race differences in arrest and conviction rates as clear evidence of race discrimination in the justice system.
Then anyone who “takes advantage” of that supposed discrimination to hire fewer blacks and Hispanics, as Pepsi did, is also guilty of race discrimination.
From a comment at The Irish Savant on this subject:
Apparently Pepsi has learned nothing.
Another quote from that comment section: “If you don’t change direction, you may end up where you are heading” – Lao Tzu.
The work place can be very stressful, so what if I am working next to a convicted murderer. We don’t need no race discrimination in a world gone mad.
“It is difficult to imagine how a conviction for a property crime, let alone a violent crime, could be irrelevant for a job. Do jobs not involve property of some kind? It doesn’t matter”
Yes it matters and the EEOC is not trying to say it doesn’t, you are misinterpreting this policy.
From http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/convict1.html :
“The Commission continues to hold that, where there is evidence of adverse impact, an absolute bar to employment based on the mere fact that an individual has a conviction record is unlawful under Title VII.”
The screening of applicants based on having been convicted/arrested for *anything* is illegal. They also lay out some guidelines for screening out people based on their criminal record. So, thieves and murderers still need not apply, but drug dealing can now be counted as sales experience.
There were some details that were left out of this WaPo article which makes me more curious after reading the article not less. How did the EEOC find out what was going on? Did the 300 ex-criminals seek each other out, organize and complain? That would be highly unlikely. Was a job applicant falsely accused of being arrested? I doubt it. Is there a snitch (read: angry black Democrat with a chip on her shoulder) within the Pepsi HR department that complained to the EEOC and why? Maybe.
I would love to see some actual investigative reporting on this story with a follow up on why Pepsi was targeted in the first place. What we got was a press statement by Pepsi and the EEOC. Basic stenography journalism.
Is this some random shakedown by the Obama Administration, similar to what he did as a community organizer / ACORN lawyer? Probably. On a deeper level, I am sure Obama knows just how criminal and irresponsible blacks are. By using criminal and arrest records to screen job applicants it is going to muck up his parade when you consider that it immediately screens out 1/4 of all blacks. Furthermore, it is the 1/4 of the black population that is too stupid to not get caught, so you have to figure that they will be unemployable anywhere that requires either brains, honesty, or both. Obama’s assault on normalcy is just social policy dressed up as anti-discrimination.
I would love to see some actual investigative reporting on this story with a follow up on why Pepsi was targeted in the first place.
It’s been an article of faith among DWLs and the race hustlers that blacks are targeted by law enforcement disproportionately for criminal activities. Therefore, they conclude, a company which discriminates on the basis of criminal records is part of this vast conspiracy against blacks.
On a more basic level, given the high criminality rates of blacks, it does become increasingly difficult for them to find jobs. So by playing the race card, the EEOC can get employment for a sector of its clientele.
That’s the problem. The government and mainstream media deny (or refuse to mention) race differences in crime rates, meaning offending rates. Instead, they assume no such differences exist, then point to race differences in arrest and conviction rates as clear evidence of race discrimination in the justice system.
Nicely summed up.
There is an implication here, also: the US is running policy based on a delusional view of the world. You wonder how much more dysfunction is created by its delusions.
The sad thing is that it is precisely organizations such as the EEOC which brought the black race down to their lowest point in history. I’ve heard the ghettos described as ‘the canary in the coal mine’ for feminist influence on communities.
We’re seeing the same thing happen with our white prole communities, 20 years after it happened in black neighbourhoods; single mothers, slack men, criminal children. All brought to you by free government cheese.
Ken S: It’s not clear from your comment what you disagree with.
Let’s start with this:
The EEOC website makes it clear that “adverse impact” refers to “an adverse impact on Blacks and Hispanics.” So the problem, according to the EEOC, is that blacks and Hispanics are disproportionately affected. It doesn’t matter to the EEOC whether or not a criminal record is relevant or irrelevant to the job; what matters is how blacks and Hispanics are affected.
Unamused:
Quit slipping on the job:
http://www.pollsb.com/photos/o/26414-pepsi_cat.jpg
“How did the EEOC find out what was going on? Did the 300 ex-criminals seek each other out, organize and complain? That would be highly unlikely.”
The most likely answer is that Pepsi didn’t pay its protection money. Disparate impact is essentially a blank cheque to sue any business at any time, and they know it, perhaps, because they are aware of HBD and what it entails.
Hi
Maybe if male whites in a suit and a tie didn’t rape this country for money and wealth and prestige, the Blacks and Hispanics wouldn’t be out there doing blue collar crimes. Blue collar crimes are the result of white collar injustices.
A true white male.
First, blacks and Hispanics commit white-collar crime (e.g., fraud and embezzlement) at much higher rates than whites — not as much higher as their rates for violent crimes, but higher nonetheless.
Second, you seem to think two wrongs make a right. Now, one of those wrongs — the one supposedly committed by whites — doesn’t actually exist (see above), but it’s still despicable to try to justify black and Hispanic criminality that way.
“They can’t help themselves! They’re victims of white privilege! No, wait: they’re fighting the system!” People like you, making excuses for non-white criminality, are one of the reasons why racial hate crimes are overwhelmingly committed against whites by blacks (plus a few Hispanics).
Third, the blacks and Hispanics living here owe their quality of life to the whites who built this country.
Really?
Wait until summer time and check your 401k and stocks. Enjoy the crash that has been simmering because of ignorance and greed of whites just like YOU.
Oh, I’m sorry. When I wrote a serious response to you, I didn’t realize you were an idiot. I hope you didn’t hurt your head trying to read it.
Nobody, NOBODY is owed a job. Anyone with management savvy and two brain cells to rub together can tell you that people with criminal records do less work, miss more work, and cause more problems than the ones who chose to not get a damn rap sheet. It costs more money to invest in these types of people, who historically don’t last long in any job. Criminals obviously tend to have poorer judgement, lower morals, and lapses in critical thinking.
White men in suits? Ha. They are becoming an endangered species. Come on, fa. It’s not Les Miserables. Even in this economy, decent, motivated people still manage to make a living. People are criminals because frankly, they are inferior, and they suck.
[Unamused: That was pretty much perfect. At the moment, “fa” refuses to say anything of substance, so he/she is in moderation.]
Unamused:
Sorry that I was a little unclear, I did indeed ignore the part that you bolded and it is not relevant to my point of disagreement. However, I would agree with you that they might be making these policies for stupid reasons, but I’ll comment on that after I make my first point clearer.
My point was that it is unlikely that the EEOC is giving any significant benefits to those with records of arrest or conviction for violent or serious property crimes. Practically speaking, Pepsi can start interviewing/hiring those involved in much softer crimes and ‘fill the quota’ that way, because preference can still be given to different criminal backgrounds if they are comparing within the same race. Pepsi will not have to replace a white with a clean record with a minority that has a violent record, but they can replace him/her with a minority that has an arrest but not a conviction for a drug offence and still remedy the ‘disparate impact’ charge (it might be interesting to crunch the numbers to guess at how far down the barrel they might have to start scraping).
That said, I will quibble a bit about the EEOC’s motives. It would not surprise me if the EEOC contains people that truly believe that the different arrest/conviction rates between races is not deserved. As far as I’m concerned this is still an open question, and a difficult one, but you won’t hear many protests from me if it suggested that they have been somewhat lazy, stupid, or dishonest over discovering the truth to these issues. I don’t think the EEOC is so degenerate that they would still be concerned about disparate impact if these arrests and convictions *are* deserved.
Another small factor in this would be whether or not many in the EEOC believe that it is fair at all to screen applicants out for certain crimes, perhaps many think a convict should be given more chances regardless of race. They might support a law that makes things fairer for everyone but they only have the power to make policy that involves discrimination on protected groups. This is less likely but something to consider.
This is a trial balloon for when they say a college degree as a requirement is discriminatory. This is a Trojan Horse for another suit. The pattern of these suits is they just keep coming and use the previous suit as the example for their case law and rulings. Steve Sailer remarks how the ‘racist tests’ issue pops up, gets corrected for a cost, then pops up again, rinse lather repeat. It’s sad that our nation doesn’t have an MSM that calls shenanigans on this.
I will find any suit involving the college degree requirement a bit comical. The people most affected by the ‘need a degree’ line were boomer whites who didn’t go to college when it was only for the upper middle class and rich in the 60s and 70s. They then got laid off in the early 90s recession and 2000 recession and despite 15-20 years of experience they were passed over as they didn’t have a degree.
If a lot of regular, white Democrats knew this was the core of their belief system, as put into practice by the lawyers and wonks who run the show, they would recoil in horror.
Ken, don’t you see the GD problem with all of that?
Why is it ANY business of the government how a company chooses its hires?
THIS is the problem. Government has already overstepped it’s bounds. And the fact that the EEOC is the arm that enforces government’s personal preferences (read: AA) in how a business has to choose hires… is merely the racist part of an overreaching tyrannical entity.
Some days I think we (the sane of the world) can turn this thing around. Then other days, such as today, I am confronted by more people who see absolutely nothing wrong with anti-liberty tyrannical governments. These days I drink more rum.
I think I see now, Ken. Yes, that sounds like what Pepsi will be forced to do: “replace a white with a clean record… with a minority that has an arrest but not a conviction for a drug offence.”
I should calculate the black and Hispanic (B&H) property crime rates. I know they’re high, but not as high as B&H violent crime rates.
It is likely that elements of the EEOC are simply mistaken due to ignorance/stupidity/laziness rather than lying out of preference for minorities/malice toward whites. (Incidentally, such preference/malice is usually motivated by ignorance/stupidity/laziness about race issues anyway. Consider commenter “fa” above, or anyone who — like Tim Wise — believes in the “white privilege” delusion.)
Anyway, after what I’ve seen out of Eric “My People” Holder’s DOJ, not to mention the SPLC, I’m not prepared to give the EEOC the benefit of the doubt regarding its possible degeneracy. And ultimately it makes little difference to me why a federal law enforcement agency would ignore the truth about B&H criminality, when the truth is relatively easy to uncover.
It does seem valid to consider reforming how criminal records are kept/not kept. For one thing, too many B&H murderers, rapists, muggers, flash robberies, and other human garbage are getting a free pass because they’re under 18, 16, 13, 10… whatever. More to the point, reforming the system for, say, minor property crimes could reduce repeat offending rates by making it easier for one-time offenders/suspected offenders to get a job, especially among the populations (white, Asian) that are generally capable of learning from their mistakes.
However, I don’t believe the EEOC is trying to do anything of the sort — that they “support a law that makes things fairer for everyone but they only have the power to make policy that involves discrimination on protected groups.” It seems to me they have made it very clear that the problem here is the B&H arrest and conviction rates. It’s all those “where there is evidence of adverse impact” lines that have convinced me.
Aurini: That sounds about right (“single mothers, slack men, criminal children” brought to us by “free government cheese”). I would add that HBD means that problems that are manageable in an overwhelmingly white country/city/neighborhood may be utterly unmanageable when blacks and Hispanics are in the mix. Also, I see you’ve got a blog now.
countenance: i liek soda kitteh
Anon: Too bad Pepsi didn’t fight it. I think they had a chance. Now they’re out $3.13 million, and the disparate impact fallacy/precedent is stronger than ever.
mr27: I didn’t think of that (“a college degree as a requirement is discriminatory”). That’s brilliant in its evilness. Now, to the best of my knowledge, the traditional solution has been to hang the lawyers and behead the wonks. Anyone got a better idea?
White privilege is not a delusion. It’s real.
Think about it. If you’re White, you’re overwhelmingly likely to be more intelligent, better looking, less impulsive, more moral than a Babuntu, and to be raised by parents who have the same advantages (or to have parents at all). All the things that are required to succeed in a modern society, we have more of. That’s our privilege, and that’s what they want to take away from us, or neutralise by making society “fairer”.
The EEOC is a handicapping system. They don’t do what they do through ignorance. They do it because it’s their raison d’etre. Because society (“the system”) is racist and favours people with the characteristics of White people.
Has anyone asked the EEOC how many of their commission members have criminal records? If the answer is none, why not? I’d suggest they do some affirmative action recruitment by loitering at a police station to see if any of the newly arrested arrivals need jobs.
Perhaps fa is referring to the fact that the people who really run ( and have run) this country – the federal reserve chairmen, the banksters, the big business execs, the labor union leaders, the military/industrial complex big shots – are all pretty much white. And they have done their darndest to screw over the little guy and make him as powerless as possible. However, the jobs they off-shored were originally created and maintained by whites and were lost by blacks and whites (and Hispanics and Jews, etc., etc.), so there is no racial character to this power grab by the high and mighty. They haven’t done this because they are white but because they CAN, and ruthlessness and self-involvement are traits shared by all of humankind, unfortunately.
There are many people who intentionally get arrested for minor scofflaws knowing that their odds of being convicted are quite low. Confrontational protesting at an OWS is a good example. Their behavior might be illegal, brazen, offensive, and interfere or block other law abiding people from their basic rights and freedoms but on such a low level that they are simply not worth the energy to prosecute. Never mind that it costs the Cities of Oakland, New York tens of thousands of dollars an hour to counteract their passive aggressive behavior. They are enjoying the disruption they are creating and don’t give a shit.
As an employer, I am intensely interested in knowing which of my employees resents authority, people who want to get ahead, and capitalism or likes to use sabotage, trespass, and vandalism, uses phony claims of police abuse or racism or is sympathetic such people and supports their actions. All of these actions are very threatening to someone with assets or deep pockets because they are the exact same tactics that the flakes will use against their employer. The same would go for malcontents that engage in mahogany flash robs, wildings, vandalism, burglary, joy riding, and the like. They all show an utter disregard for other peoples lives and property.
Obama and his minions are trying to minimize this low level anti-social behavior knowing that ne’er do wells are a core constituency of the left and if private companies don’t hire them they just join the ranks of surplus mouths competing with other more deserving welfare recipients.
Blacks in London commit crimes at a rate 12 times greater than whites yet are only 5 times more likely to be stopped by police but thankfully radio presenters like former MP George Galloway want the numbers of blacks stopped to go up I think.
Unamused – This is my rationale for why the lawyers will say a college degree is next. New rulings just egg lawyers-academics-activists on to try more. This is why the power of the president to appoint judges is so important, and why we can’t have more years of O.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/1/eeoc-high-school-diploma-might-violate-americans-w/
Add the two together: a high school requirement is discriminatory vs. those with learning disabilities + can’t use arrest records as it has an adverse impact on blacks and hispanics and what do you get?
“Requiring a college degree is discriminatory and null”.
The old joke is: “What do you call 10,000 lawyers chained together at the bottom of the ocean? A good start.”
Prof Woland:
“Their behavior might be illegal … but on such a low level that they are simply not worth the energy to prosecute.”
You mean, unlike hate littering?
Littering, people. And don’t think they didn’t try to find some legal pretext for charging them with a felony, with hate crime aggravation. And although they grovelled, I guess they didn’t help their case by saying “black mark”.
In contrast, a game of Knockout King (7-on-1 aggravated assault) is not worth prosecuting because the witnesses (a 13-year-old girl, the Mayor and his police bodyguard) refuse to snitch. Do you believe that? The DA can’t subpoena a reluctant witness, arrest her and drag her into court if necessary? The mayor of course is just a dumb politician, but his bodyguard, a police sergeant, “dint see nuffins”?
It’s not what you do, but what you think that will get you punished.
Who would you have run the country, grerp? Rich people aren’t doing anything more than being smarter and more enterprising than you and I. I’m more pissed off about all the young and healthy bloodsuckers getting my tax dollars than I am about tax breaks for the wealthy or whatever social injustice the liberal morons are bitching about these days. Give me greedy conservatives over bleeding heart liberals who think every household in South Florida should take in an earthquake displaced Haitian any day.
The strong will always thrive, and the weak will bitch about how unfair natural selection is. Grow a damn pair and make your own destiny instead of blaming the man for your failures.
I see you’ve tarted up my Jan 13 comment, where I quoted another comment that included “thuh ENword”, with two little stars – like pasties on a stripper. Strange, I never noticed the uncanny similarity between nipples and ‘g’s before. I’ll never look at *oo*le the same way again. Oh, no! It looks even more suggestive that way!
I’ve got to get out more…
[Unamused: Yeah, I’ve decided to edit out racial slurs for practical reasons, like AmRen does.]
There must be white applicants who were denied jobs at Pepsi for having been unjustly arrested at some point. Some of them should sue the EEOC for racial discrimination – since they are obviously not protected by its rules and policies.
I left a black mark on the campus.”?
Pepsi is run by anti-American Indian woman Indra Nooyi. While she’s infamous for her 2005 Columbia speech comparing America to the world’s middle finger, I clearly recall her making a comment in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 saying it was America’s fault. Despite extensive searching, it seems to have vanished into internet censorship somewhere. To clarify – I oppose invade the world/invite the world jingoism and American was not intended as the world’s policeman, but I feel nothing but schadenfreude at this supercilious, arrogant, hindi immigrant running afoul of BRA.
Amren doesn’t edit out racial slurs. They programmatically scan comments and reject any containing any number of unspeakable words out of hand. This can have bizarre results, like the time they had to turn off the censor so that people could comment on an article about Michael “Savage” Weiner.
It reminds me of the time my daughter was studying at BYU and their email server wouldn’t allow her to report to me that she had graduated cum laude.
It’s odd how times change. I remember back in the sixties, there was a court case charging the publishers of DH Lawrence’s Lady Chatterly’s Lover with obscenity. The prosecution’s case included a tally of the number of times each obscene word appeared in the book. Those words are now common on the internet, in books and movies.
In contrast, I read where some producer is planning a remake of The Dam Busters, and is agonizing over the fact that the hero’s (black) dog was called, you know, that word. He’s thinking of renaming him Ni*el.
Here in South Africa, we have a similar situation with another word with the same meaning. I suppose I must now write it as “ka##ir”. This usage originated with the first Portuguese explorers who rounded the southern tip of Africa, and met Arab traders on the east coast. This was the word that the arabs used to refer to Africans, and meant “infidel” in their language. The Portuguese took it to be an anthropological reference, and it was used for centuries as such, without any derogatory connotation. Now, it’s grounds for imprisonment, and has resulted in renaming of many geographical features and everyday items; for instance the kafferboom (ka##ir tree) which is now called a coral tree, but still retains its unfortunate botanical name of erythrina caffra. I can only laugh. Whatever you call them, whatever ridiculous, pompous label they choose for themselves, it inevitably becomes a “racial slur”, merely by association with the reality.
She didn’t run afoul of anything. Her bonus won’t be affected, it’s the shareholders (like pension funds for White people) that will take it on the chin.
And nobody will be able to avoid hiring the next Omar Thornton, even if they are justifiably afraid that they’ll re-offend and then kill after the “racists” fire them.
HOW WHITE OF YOU..
mr evergreen…If you….
left a black mark on the campus.
Someone should apply the Pepsi logic to the EEOC and sue for it (1) employing criminals and murderers, and/or (2) not employing criminals and murderers. If you are a class action lawyer, you may make a few millions out of these confused — probably criminal — public servants.
That’s the crux of this issue. once sued, the employer must justify the procedure. as in the case of firefighter’s examination, Pepsi is being called upon to defend a policy that was not set up to exclude blacks, but to screen out undesirable candidates. given that just about any screening process disparately affects blacks why can’t this law be used by, say, a black denied admittance to medical school, which also uses testing to screen applicants? how could a company prove something is a business necessity?
[…] how it works: in January 2012, Pepsi agreed to pay over three million dollars to settle a charge of “race […]
[…] government crackdown” on “hiring policies that can hurt blacks and Hispanics” (Unamusement Park). You see, Pepsi was hiring people who had never been arrested, which is racist, because such a […]