At a quick skim, seems to be a standard case of the EEOC suing for the use of criminal and credit checks as it does - this particular case is allegedly built around an individual who was rejected on credit grounds that failed to match Freeman's explicit criteria.
Was this a game of telephone where the defendant's attorney makes an inflammatory statement about the sought relief that gets included in poorly-sourced blurbs, which Scott repeated as the focus of the whole case? The chain of attribution is pretty shaky here.
Story seems to be that as Step 1 in the suit is that the EEOC needs to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, and that it relied on an expert report to do so. Problem was, the expert report sucked really bad, was excluded by the trial court, and Freeman moved for a summary judgement that was ultimately granted. EEOC tried to submit an amended report but it sucked too. Case dies in the crib and any argument about the sympathetic Black applicant or the mis-aimed relief is irrelevant. EEOC appeals, appellate court narrowly holds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded the report, and that's whole ballgame.
(And Judge Agee concurrs specifically to say that the EEOC fucked up this case *extra* hard.)
So either way the entire story is nonsense and no one was compelled to (nor did the govt attempt to compel anyone to) ignore prior attempted murder when hiring.
So 1.5/2 of the examples tested from (former?) nazi Hannannia are made up.
Maybe Scott should reflect on the credibility of the source before doing a review.
Looks like this might be an appealate brief, at least:
https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/eeoc/litigation/briefs/freeman.html#_Toc120287278
At a quick skim, seems to be a standard case of the EEOC suing for the use of criminal and credit checks as it does - this particular case is allegedly built around an individual who was rejected on credit grounds that failed to match Freeman's explicit criteria.
Was this a game of telephone where the defendant's attorney makes an inflammatory statement about the sought relief that gets included in poorly-sourced blurbs, which Scott repeated as the focus of the whole case? The chain of attribution is pretty shaky here.
Ok, I'm spending way more time on this than I should (whole minutes!) but whatever. Here's the appellate decision:
https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/published/132365.p.pdf
Story seems to be that as Step 1 in the suit is that the EEOC needs to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, and that it relied on an expert report to do so. Problem was, the expert report sucked really bad, was excluded by the trial court, and Freeman moved for a summary judgement that was ultimately granted. EEOC tried to submit an amended report but it sucked too. Case dies in the crib and any argument about the sympathetic Black applicant or the mis-aimed relief is irrelevant. EEOC appeals, appellate court narrowly holds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded the report, and that's whole ballgame.
(And Judge Agee concurrs specifically to say that the EEOC fucked up this case *extra* hard.)
Oof, that decision totally rips the EEOC a new one. Excellent find @Dan L, and thanks for doing the research and posting here!
So either way the entire story is nonsense and no one was compelled to (nor did the govt attempt to compel anyone to) ignore prior attempted murder when hiring.
So 1.5/2 of the examples tested from (former?) nazi Hannannia are made up.
Maybe Scott should reflect on the credibility of the source before doing a review.