EEOC Settles Background Check Suit with BMW, Leaves Employers Still Without Guidance
Earlier this week, it was announced that BMW Manufacturing Co. and the EEOC had entered into a Consent Decree, resolving one of three high-profile suits over a company's use of background checks in the hire process that had been pending since 2013. The settlement requires BMW to pay $1.6 million to roughly 56 claimants and other applicants to be identified and provide job opportunities to rejected applicants. The deal was approved Tuesday, September 8th by the South Carolina federal judge overseeing the litigation.
The EEOC alleged that BMW's former process for checking applicants' criminal histories had a disparate impact on African-American applicants, i.e. that it disproportionately screened out more African-American candidates. The case was all but headed for trial after hard-fought discovery battles that were regularly reported on in the legal press. BMW defended the case arguing that it had a business necessity to impose background checks on employees, as well as employees of vendors and contractors with access to the plant given its status as a member of the Customers Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, among other defenses.
The parties are right that a settlement now brings certainty and avoids the time and expense of a trial, which can take a heavy toll both in terms of monetary expense and a distraction from the business operations. The practical effect of negotiated settlement in the labor and employment field, however, is a delay in getting what management has been looking for: clearer guidance from the courts on when the use of background checks may actually violate the law rather than just taking the EEOC's word for it. What remains clear is that companies that have not already reviewed and assessed their background screening practices should do so immediately, particularly now in light of this seven figure settlement.
Questions? Contact Aimee Delaney of Hinshaw's Chicago office or any other Hinshaw employment attorney.
Topics
Featured Insights

Employment Law Observer
Aug 10, 2026
As Leaves Fall, Leave Requests Rise: Are You Compliant With Chicago’s Expanded Rules?

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

