El v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Services, 05-3857 (3^rd Cir., Mar. 19, 2007)

We’ve all heard about the disproportionate rate of African American prosecution and incarceration. (Here are some background statistics, in case you’re curious.) With more employers refusing to hire applicants with criminal records, it’s likely that we’ll see more suits like this one, in which unsuccessful job applicants sue felon-screening employers under Title VII.

Plaintiff Douglas El is a 55-year old African American who was hired as a paratransit driver by the defendant, the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority. After El had been on the job for two weeks, SEPTA fired him because a background check uncovered El’s 40-year old conviction for second degree murder, a gang-related shooting that El still disputes. El claimed that SEPTA’s policy of refusing to hire felons is unlawful because it has a disparate impact on certain minority groups that are more likely to have had run-ins with the law. SEPTA defended by arguing that its policy was a business necessity in order to protect the elderly and disabled clients who rely on paratransit services.

The district court granted summary judgment for SEPTA, and the Third Circuit cautiously affirms. The Court explains that employers face a high hurdle in justifying these hiring policies. The employer must have a good justification for excluding felons, and the policy should not be broader than necessary to accomplish these goals. Here, SEPTA’s concerns for its vulnerable clients allows it to exclude job candidates with a violent past that makes them likely to offend again.

Although the Court is skeptical about whether SEPTA’s rationale should apply to someone like El, whose conviction is forty years old, SEPTA wins this one due to sloppy lawyering. Specifically, SEPTA’s expert testified that ex-convicts were at least slightly more likely to engage in violence than non-offenders, regardless of how old their convictions were. El did not counter this evidence with his own expert, and he didn’t even bother to depose SEPTA’s expert. Thus, he failed to create an issue of fact for trial.

Posted Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:51:14 and filed under Employment, Decision of the Day. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.