A man was hired to drive a bus transporting persons with physical and mental dis

Question

A man was hired to drive a bus transporting persons with physical and mental disabilities. The hiring was conditional on the successful completion of a criminal background check. The transportation company’s subcontract prohibited the hiring of drivers who, among other offenses, had any felony or misdemeanor conviction for a “crime of moral turpitude” or “violence against any person(s).” When it was discovered that the man had been convicted of second-degree murder, his employment was terminated. The sole reason for the termination was the man’s criminal record. The conviction stemmed from a gang-related fight that took place more than forty years earlier, when the man was 15 years old. He claimed not to have been the triggerman in the shooting. Consistent with this claim, other individuals were also convicted of the murder. Other than this offense, his record was clean. The man sued the transportation company over the termination. What should the court decide? Why?

Explanation / Answer

According to EEOC, an employer cannot discriminate an employee on the basis of his criminal arrest record in the past or on the applicants at the time of the recruitment process. Further, even if the arrest record is to be essential considered at the time of employment, it would depend upon whether such an arrest background has an impact over the current job profile and also the duration of time to determine how long ago had the arrest been back then. In the above case, the second-degree murder conviction is a serious crime that the driver committed and the transportation company, being subcontracted, had been specifically instructed that no person is to be taken into employment who is convicted of a crime involving violence such in this case because of which the Company had to terminate the driver’s employment. Here, it could be established that this crime had an intense liaison with the job profile of the driver as the bus transportation dealt with persons who were handicap in physical and mental ways. However, since EEOC also considers the time when such a crime had occurred, then in this case, the driver was only a teenage boy of 15, when committed the act, and that too due to the influence of his gang. Moreover, no record of crime has been there ever since. The Court in this regard, must review his performance and behavior while in employment so far before judging the moral character of the bus driver. However, even if has a clear current professional background, end of the day, it shall be resting on the decision of the Transportation company because no particular law guides this scenario. EEOC also suggests that the Transportation Company should review and terminate the employment on certain valid grounds which could be proven in this case. Therefore the Court may support the Company in this regard unless there is some additional proofs to justify the criminal act of this driver back then.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse A
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.