Race, Employment, and Crime: The Shifting Landscape of Disparate Impact Discrimination Based on Criminal Convictions

Loafman, Lucas; Little, Andrew

doi:10.1111/ablj.12028

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, white applicants with a criminal record were more likely to get a job compared to blacks without a criminal record, highlighting how race modifies this relationship [1]. This study has since been repeated in other communities and also with receipt of other social services, including housing and public education [2][3][4][5]. The effects documented are profound and persistent, such that local, state, and federal policies have been enacted to mitigate employer discrimination against those individuals with a criminal record.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceived Discrimination Based on Criminal Record in Healthcare Settings and Self-Reported Health Status among Formerly Incarcerated Individuals

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Perceived discrimination based on criminal record is associated with social determinants of health such as housing and employment. However, there is limited data on discrimination based on criminal record within health care settings. We examined how perceived discrimination based on criminal record within health care settings, among individuals with a history of incarceration, was associated with self-reported general health status. We used data from individuals recruited from 11 sites within the Transitions Clinic Network (TCN) who were released from prison within the prior 6 months, had a chronic health condition and/or were age 50 or older, and had complete information on demographics, medical history, self-reported general health status, and self-reported perceived discrimination (n = 743).Study participants were mostly of minority racial and ethnic background (76%), and had a high prevalence of self-reported chronic health conditions with half reporting mental health conditions and substance use disorders (52% and 50%, respectively), and 85% reporting one or more chronic medical conditions. Over a quarter (27%, n = 203) reported perceived discrimination by health care providers due to criminal record with a higher proportion of individuals with fair or poor health reporting discrimination compared to those in good or excellent health (33% vs. 23%; p = .002). After adjusting for age and reported chronic conditions, participants reporting discrimination due to criminal record had 43% increased odds of reporting fair/ poor health (AOR 1.43, 95% CI 1.01-2.03). Race and ethnicity did not modify this relationship.Participants reporting discrimination due to criminal record had increased odds of reporting fair/poor health. The association between perceived discrimination by health care providers due to criminal record and health should be explored in future longitudinal studies among individuals at high risk of incarceration.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceived Discrimination Based on Criminal Record in Healthcare Settings and Self-Reported Health Status among Formerly Incarcerated Individuals

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Predicting Self-Disclosure in Recruitment in the Context of Social Media Screening

Jeske

Lippke

Shultz

2019

Employ Respons Rights J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Diversity, disparate impact, and discrimination pursuant to Title VII of US civil rights laws

Cavico

Mujtaba

2017

EDI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose While the words diversity, disparate impact, and discrimination are commonly read and heard by working adults and professionals, they can at times be confusing and fearful to some managers. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of a specific aspect of US civil rights laws – the disparate impact theory. The authors provide an analysis based on the statute, case law interpreting, and applying the statute, administrative guidelines from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, as well as legal and management commentary. The paper illustrates the requirements of a plaintiff employee’s initial case based on the disparate impact theory. The challenging causation component which requires some degree of statistical evidence is given particular attention. Limitations to the paper are stated at the beginning; and recommendations to managers are explored and provided toward the end of the paper. Design/methodology/approach It is a legal paper which covers all the laws related to discrimination based on disparate impact and disparate treatment theories. Actual court cases up until this month and Americans laws related to this concept are reviewed and critically discussed. Findings The salient feature of disparate impact is that this legal theory allows a plaintiff job applicant or employee to sustain a case of illegal discrimination without providing any evidence of a discriminatory motive. As opposed to the disparate treatment liability is imposed based on disproportionate adverse results and not discriminatory intent. Research limitations/implications This paper deals with the disparate impact theory pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. However, it must be pointed out that the disparate impact theory is also applicable to claims arising under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Since the focus of this paper is Title VII federal and state constitutional issues, such as the applicability of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause that may arise in disparate impact cases involving government entities will not be addressed. Practical implications Managers and employees can protect themselves in the workplace from illegal discriminatory practices. Initially, employers and managers must be aware of the distinction between a disparate impact case and a disparate treatment case with the latter requiring evidence of intentional discrimination. Evidence, of course, can be direct or circumstantial or inferential. Whereas in a disparate impact case there is no intentional discrimination; and as such proof of discriminatory intent is not required. Rather, the employee has to present evidence that the employer’s neutral on-its-face employment policy or practice caused an adverse disproportionate impact on the employee as a member of a protected class. Social implications Human resources professionals and managers must become educated in diversity laws in order to provide an inclusive workplace for all employees and candidates. Employers have legitimate areas of concern in hiring and promoting employees; and the courts are cognizant of employer responsibilities; and thus the employers must be able to show how specific knowledge, skills, education, training, backgrounds, as well as height, weight, strength, and dexterity are legitimate qualifications that directly relate to successful job performance. Originality/value This is an original paper by the authors.

show abstract

Race, Employment, and Crime: The Shifting Landscape of Disparate Impact Discrimination Based on Criminal Convictions

Cited by 3 publications

References 21 publications

Perceived Discrimination Based on Criminal Record in Healthcare Settings and Self-Reported Health Status among Formerly Incarcerated Individuals

Perceived Discrimination Based on Criminal Record in Healthcare Settings and Self-Reported Health Status among Formerly Incarcerated Individuals

Predicting Self-Disclosure in Recruitment in the Context of Social Media Screening

Diversity, disparate impact, and discrimination pursuant to Title VII of US civil rights laws

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About