New Criminal Background Check Rules

MSNBC.com this morning reported the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's approving & issuing new rules for employers using criminal background checks, calling for careful consideration of how and when such reviews can be used in pre-employment screenings and in the workplace because of their potential to be biased against certain groups, such as racial minorities. [ See new Enforcement Guide ]

EEOC's press release states "The new guidance clarifies and updates the EEOC's longstanding policy concerning the use of arrest and conviction records in employment, which will assist job seekers, employees, employers, and many other agency stakeholders.

"While Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not prohibit an employer from requiring applicants or employees to provide information about arrests, convictions or incarceration, it is unlawful to discriminate in employment based on race, color, national origin, religion, or sex. The guidance builds on longstanding guidance documents that the EEOC issued over twenty years ago.

"The Enforcement Guidance issued today is predicated on, and supported by, federal court precedent concerning the application of Title VII to employers' consideration of a job applicant or employee's criminal history and incorporates judicial decisions issued since passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The guidance also updates relevant data, consolidates previous EEOC policy statements on this issue into a single document and illustrates how Title VII applies to various scenarios that an employer might encounter when considering the arrest or conviction history of a current or prospective employee."

BusinessWeek, The New York Times, and Reuters also had articles.

North Carolina death penalty case vacated via racial prejudice

The San Francisco Chronicle last Saturday reported North Carolina Superior Court Judge Gregory Weeks' vacating the death penalty of convicted murderer Marcus Reymond Robinson, in a landmark ruling there, saying prosecutors across the state had engaged for years in a deliberate and systematic pattern of racial discrimination while striking black potential jurors in death penalty cases.

Weeks, in a 167-page order harshly critical of prosecutors, said they had "intentionally used the race of (jury pool) members as a significant factor in decisions to exercise peremptory strikes in capital cases," and that discrimination was a factor not only in the case Weeks heard involving convicted murderer Marcus Reymond Robinson, who is black, but also in capital cases involving black defendants across North Carolina.

The ruling, according to the Chronicle, was the first under North Carolina's Racial Justice Act, passed in 2009, which allows judges to reduce death sentences to life in prison without parole in cases where defendants prove racial bias in jury selection. Prosecutors have 60 days to appeal .

The University of Pittsburgh's Jurist added, "The decision to transform Robinson's death sentence because of racial bias is expected to have a great impact on capital punishment discussions nationwide. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) released a statement expressing its approval of the North Carolina decision and hope that the United States is moving in a direction towards abolishing the death penalty. The statement also notes the significance of Weeks' decision coming almost exactly 25 years after the Supreme Court ruled that ‘evidence of systemic bias is not sufficient to challenge a death sentence’ in the case of McCleskey v. Kemp."

The New York Times, CNN, and MSNBC also had articles.

Ohio Supreme Court Appeal/Trial Court Opinions

The Ohio Supreme Court this morning announced proposed amendments to the Supreme Court Rules for the Reporting of Opinions that would discontinue the publication of bound volumes of Ohio appeals court and trial court decisions as of July 1, 2012.

Public comment on the proposed amendments will be accepted until May 22, 2012.

Amendments to the Rules for Reporting adopted in 2002 contemplated the end of the Ohio Appellate and Ohio Miscellaneous volumes of the Ohio Official Reports at some future date, due in significant part to the declining demand for the print volumes due to the availability of the opinions via electronic publication was the major reason for the decision. Ohio Supreme Court opinions are not affected by this decision and will continue to appear in the Ohio State 3d bound volumes as well as on the Ohio Supreme Court's website.

Comments should be submitted in writing to: Sandra Grosko, Reporter of Decisions, 65 S. Front St., Eighth Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215 or sandra.grosko@sc.ohio.gov

Court's Announcement
Proposed Amendments