Employment Practices Decisions Archive: 1937 - 1995, [EMPLOYMENT-PRACTICES ¶6,274] , ARREST QUERY HAS CHILLING EFFECT ON NEGRO JOB APPLICANTS, (Apr. 29, 1971), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (Apr 29, 1971)

[EMPLOYMENT-PRACTICES ¶6,274] ARREST QUERY HAS CHILLING EFFECT ON NEGRO JOB APPLICANTS

Decision of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,

No. 71-1950April 29, 1971

Title VII--Civil Rights Act of 1964

Racial Discrimination--Employment Interviews--Job Application Forms--Query About Arrests--Business Need--Chilling Effect on Negroes.--In view of an employer’s reliance on information contained in completed application forms as a basis for determining whether to grant an interview for possible employment, the use of an application from containing a query as to whether or not the applicant had been arrested amounted to unlawful discrimination against Negroes on account of their race. Such information was not needed for the safe and efficient operation of a business engaged in the manufacture and sale of tufted rugs, mats and toilet seat covers, and could reasonably be viewed as having a chilling effect upon willingness of Negroes to apply for employment.

Charge

Charging Parties alleged that Respondent Employer had engaged in an unlawful employment practice in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by refusing to hire them because of their race.

From Text of EEOC Decision

Respondent asserts, and it is undisputed, that from May 1, 1970 through July 31, 1970, 496 persons applied to Respondent for employment. The Personnel Manager and his assistant interview few persons at the time of application, but interview them at those times when employees are needed. Applicants are selected for interviewing from the alphabetical file of application forms on a random basis. The information contained on these forms is evaluated in light of the managers’ experience and presumed expertise in matching the experience and background of available personnel with current personnel needs. Thus, it is the information which appears on the application which is determinative of opportunity for an interview and employment.

Respondent’s application form, consisting of three pages contains, under “General Information” the question,

Have you ever been arrested?

It is a reasonable inference--indeed, nearly inescapable--that the answer to the question concerning arrest is a criterion, or at least a consideration, in Respondent’s managers’ decisions concerning interviews and employment.

In Gregory v. Litton Systems, Inc., [2 EPD ¶10,264 , 63 LC ¶9485] 316 F. Supp. 401 (C. D. Cal. 1970), the court held,

. . . any policy that disqualifies prospective employees because of having been arrested once, or more than once, discriminates in fact against Negro applicants. * * * A substantial and disproportionately large number of Negroes are excluded from employment opportunities by [this] policy.

As in Gregory, Respondent herein has made no showing of business necessity. In light of Respondent’s business (finding No. 2) [1] , we may indulge in the presumption that no such showing is possible.

The composition of Respondent’s work-force and the number of interviews granted Negro applicants, set forth in the findings of fact, demonstrate the effect of Respondent’s inquiry concerning arrests. We may reasonably infer that such an inquiry also has a chilling effect upon Negroes’ willingness to apply for employment.

Accordingly, Respondent’s hiring-selection process violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. All Negroes, including Charging Parties, are aggrieved by this violation.

There is reasonable cause to believe that Respondent is engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as alleged.