Prince George’s County readers have likely read numerous media accounts involving lawsuits over disputed terms in employment agreements. Our last post, for example, referenced the highly publicized example of the teachers’ union in the District of Columbia suing the District for an alleged breach of the union’s collective bargaining agreement.
However, readers may not have known that employment disputes can arise even before an employment relationship has been formalized. For example, employers might like to inquire whether an applicant has a criminal record. However, including such questions on job application forms might get an employer into trouble.
According to a recent study, over 90 percent of American employers perform some sort of criminal background check on potential hires. However, if an employer’s official hiring procedures — even if facially neutral — produce a disparate impact of excluding members of a protected class, the employer may find itself defending against a racial discrimination claim brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
President Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Labor, Thomas Perez, recently discussed this very issue. Perez confirmed that he advocates disparate impact testing on employers who contract with the federal government. Yet one commentator specifically questioned how that testing would work in Prince George’s County, which has a majority African American demographic.
What this discussion illustrates is that employment law can implicate issues outside of the four corners of an employment agreement or employment contract. A Maryland employer’s official employment policies may be scrutinized based on the best practices of its human resources department, employee handbooks, job application forms, and other company documents.
Source: washingtonexaminer.com, “Sunday Reflection: Ken Masugi: Labor Department is wrong place for Tom Perez,” Ken Masugi, April 13, 2013