UNMASKING BIAS: THE DISCRIMINATORY NATURE OF BACKGROUND CHECKS

Physical and emotional safety should always be a precedent at work. Background checks have become a common tool for employers to ensure just that…But what if this seemingly objective practice is actually perpetuating discrimination and shutting out qualified candidates?

It's an uncomfortable truth: traditional background checks often cast a long shadow of bias. Take the recent lawsuit against Sheetz, the convenience store chain. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleged that Sheetz's blanket policy of excluding applicants with certain criminal records had a disproportionate impact on Black applicants, effectively denying them employment opportunities. This case highlights a critical issue: when companies rely heavily on criminal background checks without considering context, they risk reinforcing existing racial disparities in the criminal justice system.

Unsurprisingly, this case isn’t isolated. It highlights a systemic issue where well-intentioned policies lead to blocking qualified candidates from employment opportunities due to outdated screening practices. According to the NAACP, Black Americans are incarcerated at more than five times the rate of white Americans. This stark reality means that policies automatically disqualifying individuals with criminal records inherently disadvantage Black applicants, even if those records are unrelated to the job at hand. 

A significant flaw in many background checks is the lack of context accompanying the information provided. A candidate might be flagged for a minor offense from their youth or a financial issue stemming from a medical emergency, but what's missing is the story behind those records? Was it a minor offense from decades ago? Has the individual demonstrated rehabilitation? Without this context, employers might overlook qualified candidates who pose no real risk to the company.

So, how can employers implement background checks without reinforcing discrimination? Here are a few key strategies:

Ban-the-Box Policies: Many states and cities have adopted "Ban-the-Box" laws, which prohibit employers from asking about criminal history on initial job applications. This allows candidates to be evaluated based on their qualifications first, without the stigma of past convictions clouding the decision-making process.

Relevance of Offenses: Consider the nature of the job and whether past offenses are truly relevant to the role. A minor drug possession charge from years ago shouldn't automatically disqualify someone from a customer service position.

Individualized Assessments: Instead of automatically disqualifying candidates based on a single red flag, companies should take the time to understand the context. What were the circumstances surrounding the offense? Has the candidate taken steps to turn their life around? Individualized assessments offer a more holistic approach that helps prevent unfair disqualifications.

Fair Chance Act Compliance: Several jurisdictions have adopted The Fair Chance Act, which delays inquiries into criminal history until later in the hiring process. It's about removing unnecessary barriers and expanding the talent pool for a more inclusive workplace.

Instead of slamming the door on candidates based on a single data point, let's open it wider. By implementing fair hiring practices, employers can safeguard their interests while also championing equity and inclusivity. After all, the strength of a company is in its profits and in the values it upholds.