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

Press Release
Aug 7, 2026
Daniel McGrath Re-Elected Senior Director of the Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel

Insights for Insurers Alert
Aug 7, 2026
California Supreme Court Clarifies Pleading Standards for Excess Policy Claims

Press Release
Aug 6, 2026
Charles Townsend Named a Best Mentor Finalist in the 2026 ALM Texas Legal Awards

Webinar
Aug 5, 2026
April Toy Moderates HNBA Webinar on AI in the Practice of Law

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Aug 5, 2026
2026 AI Compliance: Upcoming Laws Every Organization Needs to Know

Press Release
July 21, 2026 | Updated on August 4, 2026
Three Hinshaw Attorneys Named to the 2026 National Black Lawyers’ Top 40 Under 40 List

Healthcare Alert
Aug 3, 2026
Fixing the Emergency Refill Trap: What California’s AB 1587 Means for Pharmacies

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Jul 30, 2026
Should Text Messages be Considered “Calls” Under the TCPA? The Seventh Circuit Says No

Healthcare Alert
Jul 30, 2026
California Courts Sharply Curtail the MICRA Damages Cap in Nursing Home Litigation

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 30, 2026
Analyzing a Couple of Cases Involving Exclusions in D&O Policies

In The News
Jul 29, 2026
Hinshaw Authors Contribute Two Articles in Latest Edition of the CCFL Quarterly Report

Webinar
Jul 28, 2026
Cathy Mulrow-Peattie and Sabrina Janeiro Present on Legal AI Technology
