Eeoc Vs Freeman Case Brief
Law Case Analysis According to the law case EEOC v. FREEMAN, the EEOC filed a law suit against Freeman and alleged the company’s hiring policy which includes criminal background and credit history checks, has a disparate impact on African-American, Hispanic, and male applicants. And the material fact of this case is whether Defendant’s hiring criteria of conducting criminal background and credit history checks is consistent with business necessity. Since the Defendant was charged by the EEOC with unlawful discrimination in this case, the source of law is the Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964. “Title VII prohibits discrimination in hiring, firing, trainings, promotion, discipline, or other workplace decisions on the basis of an employee or applicant’s race, color, gender, national origin, or religion” (Bennett- Alexander & Hartman, 2011). As a federal law enforcement agency, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has obligations to investigate violations of Title VII and enforce laws against
…show more content…
Since the Defendant claimed the background investigation policies were multi-step processes that involved “different types of checks depending on the specific job and individual was seeking, consideration of both subjection and objective criteria, and examination of a long list of faction, any one of which might control the ultimate employment decision”; the EEOC also argued it was unfeasible, not meaningful, and unnecessary to examine each sub-factor separately. Furthermore, the EEOC argued that Defendant provided error data and finally caused many alleged errors in Murphy’s dataset. Later, Plaintiff contended that Defendant’s reply brief included “new” evidence and “new” arguments, so the EEOC should be allowed to file a
Since the Defendant claimed the background investigation policies were multi-step processes that involved “different types of checks depending on the specific job and individual was seeking, consideration of both subjection and objective criteria, and examination of a long list of faction, any one of which might control the ultimate employment decision”; the EEOC also argued it was unfeasible, not meaningful, and unnecessary to examine each sub-factor separately. Furthermore, the EEOC argued that Defendant provided error data and finally caused many alleged errors in Murphy’s dataset. Later, Plaintiff contended that Defendant’s reply brief included “new” evidence and “new” arguments, so the EEOC should be allowed to file a