nd conviction records in selection ( See Green vs. MissouriPacific Railroad Co., 523 F. 2d 1290, 10 FEP Cases 1409 ) * Applying a rigid clean-record policy as part of an employment procedure (See EEOC decision no. 71-797) ourts hearing cases alleging disparate impactthat focus on employment policies and practices are neutral butdiscriminatory in effects. Courts, however, look at consequences ratherthan motive, effect rather than purpose. (8)PLAINTIFFS USUALLY PREVAIL IN THESE ACTIONS It is important to note that plaintiff successes far outweighsuccessful defenses in negligent hiring/retention actions. There are someavenues of defense, however, that should be addressed. These include: STATELEGISLATIVE RESTRICTIONS. Many states have passed laws that limit employeraccess to certain personal background information of a job applicant. Aprime example are laws that restrict access to criminal conviction records.Typically, state laws only allow the use of criminal conviction informationif there is a direct relationship between the crime for which the jobapplicant was convicted and the job for which the person applied. ( SeeGuillermo vs, Brennan, 691 F. Supp. 1151 {N.D. Ill. 1988}.) In thisexample, a person who was convicted of theft was applying for a job as alaborer ( who would have no contact with anything of significant monetaryvalue). Using the person's conviction record would not be appropriate inconsidering him for employment. LABOR CONTRACT If an employer is bound bycontract to follow a procedure for employing persons and the employerfollows the contract, his or her exposure to actions could and probablywould be reduced. PROPER NEXUS IN CAUSATION To prove a case of negligenthiring/retention effectively, the accuser must show that information aboutthe wrongdoer was available before or after hiring and was directly relatedto the injuries he or she suffered as a result of the individual hired bythe employer. Many Human resources mana...
