EEOC's Credit Screening Loss Is Not Necessarily an Employer's Win

18 February 2013 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

On January 28, 2013, a federal court in Ohio handed the EEOC a loss when it ruled in favor of several employers for their use of a third party to perform credit checks on candidates for hire. The EEOC claimed that the employers’ use of credit histories in making hiring decisions violates certain provisions of Title VII because the practice has a disproportionate impact on minority applicants.

As part of its claim, the EEOC hired experts who utilized data sampling to effectively guess the race of applicants to try and demonstrate a disproportionate negative impact of credit screening on minorities. The employers, who did not obtain applicant race information, argued that the EEOC experts could and should have simply determined the race of actual applicants, and the failure to do so made the sampling methodology unsound. The Court accepted the employers’ arguments.

While recent headlines might suggest this result was a big win for employers, those headlines might be misleading as to the true implications of the case. The ruling was not an affirmation of the use of credit histories in the application process. Instead, the EEOC lost on a technicality, meaning the ultimate theory the EEOC is arguing, and which it is pursuing in similar cases in other courts, is far from resolved. The employers in the Ohio case were also helped by the fact that information on race was not collected as part of the employment application, a fact employers that are federal contractors will not have in their defense because they are required to obtain applicant race information. In future cases, we can also anticipate that the EEOC will learn from this mistake, use actual applicant race information, and if a disparate impact can be shown, the outcome for that next employer may be vastly different.

The EEOC also seems to be keeping employers somewhat in the dark on the use of credit information, having failed to release updated guidance on the topic of credit history use despite first raising the issue in October 2010 and updating guidance on the use of arrest and conviction records in April 2012. Unless and until the EEOC provides updated guidance, employers only have a handful of sentences from the EEOC advising against the practice because it “tend[s] to impact more adversely on minorities and females.” In the meantime, and in light of the uncertainty arising from the EEOC’s litigation regarding use of applicant credit history, employers would be wise to regularly review their application process with counsel to ensure compliance with ongoing legal issues, as well as the applicable laws that vary greatly amongst the states.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services