Federal Judge Throws Out Obama Inc’s Claim that Background Checks are Racist


holder, sharpton  ap_0

Disparate impact is basically a tool for treating any policy as racist if it can be shown to have a disparate impact on minorities. This backward logic is a serious problem because in the past it has meant that employers could get sued for requiring a High School diploma for a job. Because disparate impact.

In his angry ruling the Judge called the EEOC’s allegations “laughable,” “distorted,” “cherry-picked,” “worthless” and “an egregious example of scientific dishonesty.”

“Indeed, any rational employer in the United States should pause to consider the implications of actions of this nature brought based upon such inadequate data. By bringing actions of this nature, the EEOC has placed many employers in the ‘Hobson’s choice’ of ignoring criminal history and credit background, thus exposing themselves to potential liability for criminal and fraudulent acts committed by employees, on the one hand, or incurring the wrath of the EEOC for having utilized information deemed fundamental by most employers.

“Something more, far more, than what is relied upon by the EEOC in this case must be utilized to justify a disparate impact claim upon criminal history and credit checks. To require less, would be to condemn the use of common sense, and this is simply not what the discrimination laws of this country require,” says the ruling, in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the case.

Unfortunately common sense had been condemned a while back. Still it’s good to see that the Holder Jihad against civil rights is getting some pushback.

The point being made here is that the law functions as a Catch 22, giving employers a choice between facing liability from the government on discrimination charges and civil liability from customers. And employers are expected to choose the latter.

  • JacksonPearson

    Me thinks that Baracky has overplayed his worn out deck of race cards. Lying in a brief doesn’t fit to well in an appeal.

  • Well Done

    I suppose this idiotic “law” is why so many people think including a person’s skin color in their description is “racist”(TM). I don’t see how any such law can stand up in court. Just because a gov’t body makes a law doesn’t mean we all have to knuckle under. There has to be some personal responsibility. Hiring the wrong person because a “law” prevents you from including his criminal record in your considerations violates the rights of the persons doing the hiring and essentially excuses that person for violating the law. This will encourage more lawbreaking!

  • RedStateVet

    Since when did the Obama regime care about what the law & judiciary have to say? HRH Obama just does what he wants, he obviously knows what is good for us peasants.

  • Chris

    The same basic logic applies to the post-Simpson-Mazzoli amnesty proposal. Forget the infraction and how it will impact other parties. Roll with emotion, and damn logic, just as they did after the Zimmerman ruling.

  • KAMALA1218

    I GUEES IT MUST BE A CRIME TO HIRE SOMEONE WITH A HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA AND CAN READ. IS IT RACIST TO NOT HIRE SOMEONE FOR THE MILITARY OR POLICE WITH A LENGHTY CRIMINAL RECORD? I SHOULD GO OUT AND GET MYSELF ARRESTED, AND SUE THE GOVERNMENT FOR DENYING ME A JOB? AN INSTANT WAY OF COLLECTING THE GHETTO LOTTERY