Appeals Court Rules Unanimously Against ‘Hypocritical’ Anti-Discrimination Agency

Chuck Ross, Daily Caller, April 10, 2014

A federal appeals court judge ruled against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, saying the agency was hypocritical in its lawsuit against a test prep company.

“In this case the EEOC sued the defendants for using the same type of background check that the EEOC itself uses,” wrote Raymond Kethledge, a 6th circuit court of appeals judge.

Kethledge joined two other judges who voted unanimously against the EEOC, which was appealing a ruling from a district court.

The EEOC had alleged that Kaplan Higher Education Corp. engaged in disparate impact by using credit checks in the job application process. Those credit checks, the EEOC contended, unfairly screened out black applicants.

But the appeals court found issue with the methods used by the agency to analyze Kaplan’s hiring decisions.

{snip}

Kethledge pointed to the EEOC’s personnel handbook as evidence that the agency itself finds value in credit checks. The handbook “recites that “[o]verdue just debts increase temptation to commit illegal or unethical acts as a means of gaining funds to meet financial obligations.”

“[T]he EEOC runs credit checks on applications for 84 of the agency’s 97 positions,” wrote Kethledge in Wednesday’s court opinion.

After a string cases where Kaplan executives and other administrative staff had stolen funds from students, Kaplan instituted a series of job screening measures, including credit checks on executives, accountants, and other staff members who deal with student finances.

{snip}

Topics:

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Puggg

    Funny, seems like I just said something about for thee but not for me hypocrisy.

  • Alexandra1973

    I have to wonder how “diverse” the EEOC is.

    • AndrewInterrupted

      Their employee population is 50% African. Surprised?

      There is one middle-aged, hetero, white guy in the lobby under glass they use for tours.

      wwwDOTadversityDOTnet

    • Urbane Neanderthal

      Federal government employees overall 18% are black. About a third more than the black portion of the US population.

      I would guess EEOC is a bit higher as their are no positions such as Forrest Ranger which would be unpalatable to the hip urban demo.

      • Many states and localities have black ‘worker’ populations on the order of 50% or more. And I have personally known them to declare that they will never work in private industry because “they make you work too hard.”

        • AndrewInterrupted

          No doubt about it. It’s working welfare. They would be kicking and screaming, pulling out the hedges being dragged out. They have all those former slave owners to carry them.

      • AndrewInterrupted

        And 99% of those 18% are as useful as t*ts on a bull.

        • Urbane Neanderthal

          99%? you’re being generous…

          Do you have a source that 50% of the EEOC is black? I would like to use that if you do.

          • AndrewInterrupted

            wwwDOTadversityDOTnet

          • trouble maker

            The EEOC is actually 42% black and 100% useless in regards to helping White People with discrimination complaints.

          • AndrewInterrupted

            It was 48% and rising as OBongo took office. There is no way it’s any lower. They must be re-classifying demographics to disguise it. The way the SCOTUS precedents went down, it is perfectly legal to discriminate against white people. It’s not against the law.

    • Wethepeople

      It won’t be 100% diverse until they manage to remove every last Caucasian from the organization.

      • RonanTheLibtardian

        That seems to be what Andy is saying here. He and big-one got burned by these people. Do you have any first hand accounts like those two guys?

        • Wethepeople

          My comment was directed at alexandra1973, as it says right next to the post. I was commenting on the OP asking how ‘diverse’ the EEOC was. In regards to this, yes I have been burned by diversity. Diversity is a lie and does not refer to coexistance, nor an equal blend of races, creeds and ideals. Diversity can only be achieved (in Marxists opinions) when whites have been eliminated.

          • AndrewInterrupted

            So, help us and you and flesh out some rough examples. Trumped up charges? Invented charges? Falsifying the job performances of the good and the bad?

            I’ve mentioned my experiences while in the belly of the Cultural Marxist beast. In my case, at a big defense contractor. I’ve posted comments on this topic in earlier links, too. bigone4u has as well.

            Air it out, brother.

          • RonanTheLibtardian

            Soooo, roughly what happened? Without names, states, etc.

  • borogirl54

    I can tell you one thing, to work for the EEOC, you need to pass a background check, including a credit check. I applied for a job there several years ago but did not get the job. This is the pot calling the kettle black.

    • Puggg

      Only the best for the agency that wants to wag its finger in everyone else’s faces and say no discrimination.

    • AndrewInterrupted

      You are probably white and heterosexual. You didn’t have a chance.

      • borogirl54

        No I am Asian/white. To me, the impression I got was that I was too conservative for them. My late husband was a federal employee and told me that when EEOC comes to investigate, it is hard to get them to leave.

        • AndrewInterrupted

          Asian/white. Close enough. But, your assumptions were correct. There are very few white people left in the EEOC because their mandate is to persecute them. The pick feminists, LGBTQ’s and especially Blacks because they can be expected to interpret laws against white men, in particular. Twisted, convenient interpretation of this kind is called ‘lawfare’.

          Just in Statistics 101, when you can make a pile of numbers say anything you want, In DOJ/DOL 101, you can make any labor laws say anything you want. The key is to hire people who hate white people. It is what J. Christian Adams calls “personnel is policy”. He has written extensively on the Obama/Holder anti-white agenda.

        • Urbane Neanderthal

          Black people do not care for Asians in my experience.
          They don’t like to have people around that are more intelligent.

  • Invasions of privacy are NEVER a good thing. But today it’s so difficult to fire someone, an employer has to be extra careful on the front end. The best workplace would allow employers to fire anyone at will, especially for poor job performance. Many people today have bad credit due to the poor economy. A felony background check is a different matter entirely.

    • paul marchand

      The extraction of the right to hire and fire is a theft of a basic human right.
      And that human right can be logically extended to the corporate.
      What this is REALLY all about is a racial spoils system:
      whitey does the thinking and investing of time and resources, minorities rack up. Undeservedly.

    • AndrewInterrupted

      I come from the belly of the Cultural Marxist beast: 10 years at a defense contractor. The very metrics you claim would make the “best workplace” are the very ones the grievance industry occupation government uses regularly to purge our similar demographic. Removing federal, centralized oversight is the first step, I believe.

      A “poor performance” is whatever the anti-white man-haters say it is. And the corruption to back up their lies snakes all the way to the top, and to snake pits like the EEOC. It’s your word against the greasy snakes.

  • D.B. Cooper

    Remember what I said months ago? The haters like to hide anonymously behind the name of the organization. No one ever goes after the flesh and blood employees of the EEOC, or the SPLC, or the NAACP themselves.
    I’ll remember the GOP’s inaction come election day, even if you don’t.

  • AndrewInterrupted

    The first bill that the 2016 President signs should be the one that shuts down the anti-white machine that is the EEOC and the OFCCP. First 100 hours. Turn over all labor law issues to the states. They personify Peter Brimelow’s (permanent) ‘minority occupation government’. 50% of the EEOC employee population is African. And it shows in their ‘lawfare’ tactics. A bunch of Eric Holders in hair hats. I was personally discriminated against by the EEOC/Boston office. The acting Director there lied to the FBI’s face about the obstruction in my case—->and the FBI did nothing. The entire U.S. government is under occupation.

    • Eric Shun

      A whole series of republican presidents (as well as republican-led congress) have had decades of opportunity to repeal unfair and goofy liberal laws and regulations, but do absolutely nothing.

      • AndrewInterrupted

        That is manifestation of the grievance industry occupation government. They are parallel concerns. Federal agencies and contractors have been swallowed whole by the grievance industry. There are two governments.

        The grievance industry occupation government is free to interpret any so-called law any way they please. The only people who can afford to challenge them are the same people who are in bed with them, like unions. Like this Equal Pay Day baloney a couple days ago.

        • paul marchand

          As a general rule:
          The ” rights ” wrangled by the federal government for ” A ” are actually rights stolen from ” B “.
          With the demographic changes, unless there is a HUGE wake-up by the ACTUAL aggrieved ( read: ” our side ” ), “surgical removal” is highly unlikely, near-impossible.
          Other than that, only secessions or revolt ( at least a tax revolt) would do the trick.

          • AndrewInterrupted

            Well, “surgically removed” is really amputation.

            The Republicans would remain consistent with conservative values, such as smaller government. Smaller government means closing agencies.

            Each of the 50 states already have existing labor departments. There would be very little indigestion with respect to closing the EEOC and OFCCP, to name two examples.

            To serve up some poetic justice, I would offer the EEOC and OFCCP employees jobs in DHS, to deport more of their fellow nation-taking snakes.

  • RyanP

    This is classic. It must be nice to be part of the ruling class. Do as we say, not as we do!

    • AndrewInterrupted

      The EEOC and the OFCCP go regularly uncontested. This might even be a political stunt like the FBI announcement concerning the ADL/SPLC. Which then turned out to be a lie.

      An average Joe would have to spend $500,000 to challenge an EEOC dismissal. That’s why they only (rarely) lose cases involving well funded unions or class actions.

      One guy doesn’t have a prayer challenging them. bigone4u just burned through $200K fighting those people, then had to give up. A very common story. The EEOC is an anti-white racket.

  • Always nice to see hypocritical diversicrats hoisted by their own petards…

  • Malgus

    BAHH-HAH-HAH!!!

    Today was a tough day… Karma was working against me the whole day – almost nothing went my way…

    Then I sit down and read this…

    Thank you, AmRen, for posting this… finally put a smile on my face. 🙂

  • me

    Bureaucrats and anti-Whites are ruining this country….nice to see the EEOC get slapped!

    • paul marchand

      With the changing US demographics, this ” slap ” is light, and temporary.

  • Barbara Cornett

    The “Kaplans” must have hired their own relatives who ripped off students as long as they were not in any way related to the “Kaplans”.

  • paul marchand

    What is wrong with an employer using ANY criteria, objective or subjective, in hiring.
    That basic HUMAN RIGHT has been under attack by the US government for about 50 years.
    If I own a business hiring 500 people, and a guy comes in with pink toenails, or sheesh, a polka dot shirt, I, the employer, should have the right to tell him ” BYE ” .
    He can go apply at someplace that values those traits.

  • The Department of Homeland Security also uses credit checks. A former friend who was a TSA passenger screener in 2003 tried to get into the Sky Marshal program, but was denied because of his lousy credit. Evidently it is OK for any government agency to run credit checks, but never private industry.