EEOC Fails Again in its Effort to Bring a Disparate Impact Claim Based on Background Checks
1 min read
Apr 28, 2014
The EEOC recently filed suit against an education corporation for discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 arguing that the employer's use of criminal and credit background checks for applicants had a disparate impact on racial minorities.
The prospective employees were being screened as part of the company's hiring process for positions with access to sensitive financial and student information after it discovered employees stealing student financial aid payments. The EEOC claimed that criminal background checks on applicants have a "disparate impact" on non-white job applicants, which is a legal theory reflected in its 2012 "Enforcement Guidance" concerning the use of credit history information.
The District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted the employer's motion for summary judgment ruling that the EEOC had failed to meet its burden of proving the employer's screening practices disproportionately excluded racial minorities and the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit agreed in its opinion on April 9, 2014.
In analyzing whether a disparate impact on minority applicants existed, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals was sharply critical of the EEOC's for several reasons including the agency's own use of background checks in their hiring decisions for similar job related reasons and its use of an unreliable expert and faulty statistical analyzes (referred to by the court as "laughable"). A similar lawsuit by the EEOC filed in the district court in Maryland using the same purported "expert" was tossed out in 2013 for almost identical reasons (EEOC v. Freeman).
Despite these setbacks, employers should be aware of the EEOC's ongoing strategy to target the hiring process focusing on the disparate impact on racial minorities of an employer's use of background checks. At least for employers who are not government contractors they must remain vigilant to ensure that use of criminal and credit background checks comply with federal and state law and these efforts do not adversely impact minority persons, are justified by legitimate concerns about sensitive jobs duties, and seek to gather only information relevant to performance.
Featured Insights

In The News
Jul 16, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Anticipates Epic Battle Between “Titans of the Antitrust Bar”

Press Release
Jul 15, 2026
Two Hinshaw Partners Recognized in Minnesota Monthly's 2026 Top Lawyers in Minnesota

Event
July 13-15, 2026
Hinshaw Proudly Sponsors 2026 Lavender Law Conference and Career Fair

Webinar
Jul 14, 2026
Scott Seaman Presents on Horizontal vs. Vertical Exhaustion of Insurance

Healthcare Alert
Jul 8, 2026
A New Era of Compliance Standards for California DSOs and MSOs After the Aspen Dental Settlement

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 7, 2026
What Insurers Need to Know About California’s FAIR Plan Assessment Recoupment Guidance

In The News
Jul 6, 2026
Francesco Palanda’s Practical Guide for Mitigating AI-Related Business Interruption Risk

Lawyers' Lawyer Newsletter
Jun 29, 2026
Beyond Malpractice: The Rising Threat of Privacy and Statutory Claims Against Lawyers



