EEOC v. Freeman: Another Employer Victory in EEOC’s Enforcement Efforts Regarding Employer Use of Background Checks

09 March 2015 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Authors: Taylor Eric White

Last summer, we wrote about the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) requirements in conjunction with the EEOC’s effort to sue employers who use background checks for job applicants and employees. Essentially, the EEOC alleges that an employer’s use of background checks can lead to a disparate impact among applicants and employees. Thus far, the EEOC’s effort in this regard has been basically unsuccessful—albeit relentless.

Nevertheless, the Fourth Circuit recently issued another resounding defeat against the EEOC in its opinion, EEOC v. Freeman, No. 13-2365, 2015 WL 728038 (4th Cir. Feb. 20, 2015). Specifically, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s holdings in EEOC v. Freeman, 961 F. Supp. 2d 783, 793–96 (D. Md. 2013), which we discussed in our June 2014 Work Knowledge Blog post on this issue. Id. at *3. Like the district court, the Fourth Circuit took issue with the EEOC’s expert, Kevin R. Murphy, noting the “‘sheer number of mistakes and omissions’” in the EEOC’s expert’s analysis. Id. These errors included “double-counting applicants who had failed their background checks” and a failure to “change ‘incorrect coding of race and pass/fail status for several individuals’” in the data set. Id.

Though, perhaps most relevant for employers defending against this sort of action was Judge Agee’s concurring opinion. Id. at *3-7 (Agee, J., concurring). He reminded the EEOC that its “actions can be also expected to have broader consequences than those of an ordinary litigant given the ‘vast disparity of resources between the government and private litigants.’” Id. at *7. That is, the EEOC owes a duty not only to employees, but also to “employers as well: a duty reasonably to investigate charges, a duty to conciliate in good faith, and a duty to cease enforcement attempts after learning that an action lacks merit.” Id. (citing EEOC v. Argo Distrib., LLC, 555 F.3d 462, 473 (5th Cir. 2009)). Judge Agee found that the EEOC failed in this duty, and he encouraged the EEOC “to reconsider how it might better discharge the responsibilities delegated to it or face the consequences for failing to do so.” Id.

The Fourth Circuit’s opinion in Freeman, particularly Judge Agee’s concurrence, represents another victory for employers in the battle against the EEOC’s argument that certain background checks lead to a disparate impact among job applicants and employees. Nevertheless, the EEOC currently has other background check related cases still ongoing, so the question of whether the EEOC will continue this enforcement effort remains open. This means employers should still proceed cautiously when using background checks in the workplace.

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.

Authors

Related Services

Insights

RCE PTA Carve-Out Resumes After Interference
18 September 2019
PharmaPatents
The Ninth Circuit Expected to Rule that Doctors Can Be Wrong in the Winter v. Gardens False Claims Act Case
18 September 2019
Legal News: Government Enforcement Defense & Investigations
Upcoming Webinar: Maximizing Solar Tax Credits - Navigating the Start of Construction Rules (Part 1)
17 September 2019
Renewable Energy Outlook
When Birds Finally Find a Nest
17 September 2019
Dashboard Insights
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.
CTeL Telehealth Fall Summit 2019
04-06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.