Okay "criminal defense attorney."

I'm sorry man I'm trying not to say this, but I'm really doubting that "I'm a criminal attorney" statement you made there, but again, I have no idea who you are so what do I know. Look I've given you the right answer, I've even tried to explain to you what your obligation is to your own clients. Do it that information what you will - but at this point we now really are simply wasting each other's time. Have a great

I don't know what else to say to you at this point other than to say that as an attorney, your answer should not be it happens and there's nothing nobody can do about it. That's not a particularly good attitude to have, and it also isn't true. And so I'm going to State it one more time, and then I'm going to drop out because now this conversation really is spinning its meals. Nothing is easy to prove, especially claims of discrimination. But if you go to the right attorney, tell them your case, and there's something there to be found Dash that attorney will find it and will run with it. Again, if you actually are a criminal defense attorney, you may be the best one in the state - but that's not what your clients need for this particular issue. Help them with whatever arrest issues they have, but for this issue they don't need a criminal defense attorney, they need an employment attorney. Don't make the decision for somebody else as to whether or not the case can or can't be proven. Either take it on yourself and do the investigating to find out, or give it to somebody who specializes in this particular branch of the law and let them make the decision. You owe it to whatever clients you have to give them the best legal advice. I'm not a practicing attorney, but I am legally trained on this matter and I'm giving you what is at least at the core of what is the best legal advice.

Again, if you really are a lawyer, then you know the fault with that statement that you just made. That is law, and that's how it works. There's nothing I can do to help you, or your clients with that.

So that other subthread went way down a rabbit hole that ultimately LED nowhere. Which brings me back to the original post and the original redditor. I'm going to ask again, were you arrested for something, or were you convicted of something? The answer to that question does play a role and whether or not that criminal record can or can't be considered, as well as if it can be considered how it can be considered. Secondly, for the jobs that you didn't get, do you know it was because you have an arrest record, as in they told you you were disqualified because? Or did you simply not get the job, and you're assuming it's because you have in a rest record? If it's the latter, that doesn't mean you're not right, but that means that you're claims will have to be investigated by an attorney and proven. If you know that's the case, as in they sent you an email, or a letter, or even a phone call in which they literally said we liked you but.. well now you have a slam dunk.

I am listening to what you're saying. And there is a way to prove it, if it's actually happening. If they have no proof that that's what the issue is, then they don't know that it's actually happening. The fact that it's difficult to prove doesn't mean that it is or isn't happening. It's simply means it is difficult to prove. Again, a good employment lawyer can take the facts and dig out the truth if the truth is there to be found because that is literally the job of a lawyer. So yes I am listening to you, now you need to listen to me - hook them up with the good employment attorney.

And I'm telling you your best bet is to tell them to apply for any job that they see for which they believe they are qualified. If one of those jobs happens to be with my organization, they're going to have no issues about getting the job simply because they have an arrest record. For your part as their attorney, direct them to an employment law attorney who can help them fight the jobs they are in getting simply because of an arrest record. As a criminal defense lawyer you're unlikely in a position to be able to help them with defending their legal rights, but an employment law attorney can do so. So direct them to them because those other companies need to be set straight if they are in fact engaging in that discriminatory practice.

Yeah, nice try. Your attempt at his anger there is falling just about as flat as your argument has. Like I said, an international organization with 200,000 employees. Every one of our jobs is publicly posted on multiple job boards. If you have clients that are looking for a job, have them apply for any job they see that they think they're a fit for and despite your desire to have people discriminate against them for having an arrest record, we'll actually treat them fairly. think I made my point. Have a great day.

I deleted that last comment cuz that wasn't fair of me to say that. It is entirely possible that you are an attorney, you're just talking about a legal specialty that isn't in your wheelhouse and therefore you don't understand how it is practically applied. So forgive me for saying that. But I still stand by what I said, I've been doing this for 30 years, this is in fact exactly how it works - and your criminal law experience that to the extent that you have it - is not applicable to say that you are an expert on this particular field of law.

Again, of the two of us, one has clients who may have a complaint about it - one of us has spent 30 years actually doing it.

I'm happy you're a lawyer. While I'm not a practicing lawyer, I do have law degrees as well, and I specialize in employment law. From a corporate perspective, this isn't something that comes up once in a blue moon. We have 200,000 employees. We get background check issues that come up probably 5 to 6 times a week every week. I'm very happy that you're a lawyer, but that doesn't mean your take on this is correct either. Being a criminal defense lawyer does not mean that you are practiced in the hiring practices of corporations, being a criminal defense lawyer does not mean that you understand on a daily basis how those laws are applied. So once again, I'm going to make a distinction that, if you actually are a lawyer, should be relatively easy for you to understand. No employer anywhere, is going to use the simple fact that somebody was arrested, as a basis not to hire them. And the reason for that is twofold. Once again, the EEOC clearly says not to do that. Secondly, and again if you actually are a criminal defense lawyer you should know this better than anybody, a person is innocent until proven guilty. An arrest is not an indicator of guilt. So one more time, take whatever law practice you may or may not have, but get yourself a slightly better corporate understanding. This is applying hiring practices to corporations. This isn't a criminal defense area, this is an employment law area.

It's not playing semantics, and again it's literally what it says. And again, for what it's worth, you're talking to somebody who spent 30 years dealing with among other things, this very question. I'm telling you from experience that what it says is how it's implemented. Now at the end of the day, if reading the language literally from the EEOC isn't enough to convince you, if hearing it from an employment law specialist with 30 years of experience on how this is actually implemented is it enough to convince you, then I don't know what else to tell you. You have my permission to believe whatever you want, godspeed. I just hope whatever your job is, it doesn't involve making hiring decisions on behalf of your employer. Because if you are making hiring decisions based on the simple fact of whether or not a person was or wasn't arrested for something, you're exposing not only your employer to some serious liability, but depending upon the state you're in you're exposing yourself personally to liability as well. Do with that what you will.

I'm not playing semantics at all. That's literally what it says. Word for word. No reading between the lines, no personal interpretation. I've spent last 30 professional years working in employment law for corporations that have locations not only internationally, but in 25 states, including CT, in the us. I deal with this literally on a daily basis. Aside from being able to read what the EEOC literally says in black and white, I also have three decades of practical experience. I know what I'm talking about. If you choose to dismiss all that because you want the answer to be something else, that's your prerogative. Have at it my friend.

And this is where critical thought, and the ability to think outside the box needs to come into your equation. By your own words, it is not the arrest that can be used against a person, but rather their behavior during the process. A person who resist arrest and say attacks the cop in the process, would be a problem. But in that situation, the issue isn't that they were arrested, the issue was that they chose to say attack the cop. You're reading what it says, now I need you to pay attention to what it says.

And as I said, it clearly states in there that an arrest is not an indicator of what I'm doing. Arresting is almost never used as a basis, and when it is, and it's challenged, the employer typically finds themselves in trouble. So again, being arrested for something is not in and of itself a valid reason. A conviction can be, but even then there has to be a connection and the article literally says, "An employer cannot refuse to hire people simply because they have been arrested."

Correct they don't need to tell you. I never said otherwise.

No, we don't agree. I literally just said for just an arrest - no. Only a conviction and only if it's related.

Solely for an arrest - in most cases no. For a conviction, yes - they can.

Yes, and I responded accordingly as you posted it.

That is correct. As you showed yourself, an arrest isn't a valid reason and in application - in many states, refusing a job on the basis of an unrelated conviction can be grounds for discrimination.

https://www.eeoc.gov/arrestandconviction

Eeoc guidelines.

In most states it's not legal to withhold an offer of work based on something that is pending. Is this an ongoing case or were you convicted of something?