11-3-16 National:
If you wind up in prison in the U.S., your punishment doesn’t necessarily end the day you serve out your sentence and go home. Former inmates reentering society often get ensnared in a web of laws that dictate their post-prison lives, from where they can live, to what they can do for a living, to whether they can ever vote.
In 2014, when the American Bar Association conducted a national survey of “collateral consequences” — legal restrictions imposed on people with criminal records — they found 44,500 different state and federal statutes. ..Continued.. by The Marshall Project
Showing posts with label ( .News-Employment-UN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ( .News-Employment-UN. Show all posts
November 3, 2016
How Can a Criminal Record Haunt You for the Rest of Your Life?
October 18, 2012
Biometric criminal record checks for U.S. job applicants increase
10-18-2012 Washington DC:
According to statistics from the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, fingerprinting has exponentially increased as a method of checking job applicants in the private sector.
In 2000, employers who were screening job applicants sent approximately 6.6 million sets of fingerprints to the FBI. In 2012, it is estimated that the number of fingerprints forwarded to the FBI to conduct background checks will total more than 25 million.
Industry analysts attribute the increase in background criminal checks due to enhanced security measures put in place since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Further, workplaces that deal with healthcare, education and finance are increasing the number of criminal checks they conduct.
The FBI’s authority to conduct a criminal history record check for non-criminal justice purposes is based upon Public Law 92-544.
Public Law 92-544, passed by Congress in 1972, allows non-criminal governmental agencies and private entities within states to obtain criminal record information from the FBI if the state’s legislature, or in some states a city council, board of supervisors or other local legislative body, has passed a statute authorizing access, and if the statute is approved by the U.S. Attorney General.
The U.S. Department of Justice has advised that a state statute establishing guidelines for a category of employment or the issuance of a license must, in itself, require fingerprinting and authorize the governmental licensing or employing agency to exchange fingerprint data directly with the FBI.
Often, background checks are conducted by private contractors who often compete against local enforcement agencies, and offer expedited processing services. ..Source.. by Stephen Mayhew
September 13, 2012
Criminal Background Checks Remain on the EEOC's Radar
If you are considering using arrest or conviction records to aid in your hiring decisions, do not do so without a reason connecting the offense to the job, and without the input of employment counsel versed on these issues.
Four months ago, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued its Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions under Title VII. That Guidance prohibits employers from implementing broad-based blanket exclusions on any individuals with an arrest or criminal history. Instead, it provides that the consideration of criminal convictions requires a targeted screen that considers at least the nature of the crime, the time elapsed, and the nature of the job, and then must provide an opportunity for an individualized assessment to determine if the policy as applied is job related and consistent with business necessity.
Last week, the EEOC issued its Draft Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2012 – 2016, which provides that the identification, investigation, and litigation of systemic discrimination cases—pattern or practice, policy, and/or class cases where the alleged discrimination has a broad impact on an industry, profession, company, or geographic area—is a top strategic priority for the agency.
On Sept. 10, these two issues came together.
The Nashville Business Journal [hat tip: employeescreenIQ Blog] reported that the EEOC will likely file a lawsuit against Dollar General Corp., challenging that its criminal background check policy has a "disparate impact" on black job candidates and employees. Apparently, Dollar General Corp.'s policy "excludes from employment individuals with certain criminal convictions for specified periods." This lawsuit comes on the heels of a $3.13 million settlement paid earlier this year by Pepsi to settle litigation with the EEOC over hiring policies that excluded anyone who had been arrested pending prosecution. ...continued... by Jon Hyman
September 2, 2012
Hired & Fired: How Employers Can Avoid Liability
Understanding the employer's position!9-2-2012 National:
New EEOC regulations have increased the legal challenges for employers at both ends of the employment process. How can employers avoid the pitfalls?
In December 2011, a CareerBuilder/Harris Interactive survey revealed that more than two-thirds of companies were affected by a bad hire in the past year. For 41% of those companies, the mistake cost them at least $25,000. Given this, it is no surprise that the expense of a bad hire is making employers increasingly conscious of how they make hiring decisions. In addition, the growth of negligent hiring claims, fraud, workplace violence, tort liability and the negative publicity that can accompany any of these have heightened the importance of making sure the candidate a company hires is the right one.
Many companies already conduct cursory background checks: they do an online criminal history search and make a quick call to employee-supplied references. But this is largely as an exercise in formality rather than a true effort to gain an understanding of the candidate’s background, activities and character. And this approach usually fails to compile a clear and detailed picture of a person.
Considering the expense and hassle associated with hiring, training and firing a bad employee, it is surprising that so many remain reticent to conduct more thorough pre-employment background checks. For some, cost could be a factor. For others, it could be that laws and policies issued by the federal government have caused employers to think twice before checking backgrounds. But if proper procedures are followed, this latter concern is entirely avoidable.
Updated EEOC Guidelines
New guidelines issued by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in April 2012 appear to up the ante on identifying perceived risks associated with background checks. These guidelines reiterate the EEOC’s long-standing policy that criminal history checks alone are not sufficient to determine suitability for hiring.
Specifically, the EEOC indicated that while arrest records are not probative that criminal conduct has occurred, convictions are. The agency has also stressed that criminal record exclusions have a “disparate impact” based on race, sex and national origin. And most importantly, it has noted that a policy of excluding all applicants with a criminal history—particularly when the issue is not “job-related or consistent with business necessity”—should be avoided (unless required, as it is in certain professions, by other federal laws).
But rather than causing employers to turn away from using any background check, these guidelines should empower employers to gain a clearer picture by conducting more in-depth investigations.
Disparate Impact
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. To treat members of certain racial, ethnic or gender groups differently than others who have a similar history—criminal or otherwise—is discriminatory and thus illegal. The more difficult issue is to discern cases where blanket criminal history checks may unjustifiably and disproportionately exclude from employment individuals of a particular race, sex or national origin. These cases are known as “disparate impact” discrimination cases.
The reason is that certain racial or ethnic groups tend to have more contact with law enforcement, often based on factors such as the communities where they live. To make hiring decisions based solely on contact with law enforcement would disproportionately impact members of that community. The EEOC understandably opposes “disparate impact” discrimination.
To avoid the problem of disparate impact, the EEOC guidelines encourage employers to conduct a more in-depth investigation to establish aggravating and mitigating factors surrounding any criminal history.
The guidelines also require employers to take a hard look at the job that they are trying to fill. Factors such as the details underlying a conviction, the recency of the conviction, the age of the applicant at the time of the conviction, the severity of the criminal conduct, any discernible pattern of criminal behavior, steps taken to address underlying causes, and numerous other circumstances should be considered rather than enacting a blanket prohibition against hiring those with criminal records. This information can be developed in a background check.
Using conclusions drawn from various social science and criminology research and studies, the EEOC guidelines have focused on assessing the use of criminal history records in employment decisions. Some of these efforts were spawned by judicial decisions. In El v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), for example, plaintiff Douglas El was fired from his job as a bus driver for the mentally and physically disabled after his employer learned he had a 40-year-old conviction on his record for second-degree murder. El argued that SEPTA’s policy of terminating the employment of those with violent offenses was a violation of Title VII since it was discriminatory to minorities who were more likely to have criminal records.
Ultimately, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found in favor of SEPTA and ruled that the company “adapted” the business necessity approach to criminal convictions by noting that such hiring policies “ultimately concern the management of risk” of future actions that “endanger the employer’s patrons.”
Although noting that it is never possible to measure risk perfectly, the court stated that the policy should “distinguish between applicants that pose an unacceptable level of risk and those that do not.” SEPTA experts argued that former violent criminals presented a greater risk for committing violent behavior in the future, and so the court determined that no reasonable juror could conclude that SEPTA’s hiring policy was inconsistent with a business necessity even though El’s conviction had happened so long ago.
Gather Sufficient Information
In effect, the EEOC is challenging human resource professionals to exercise judgment, rather than robotically apply a criminal history litmus test to job applicants. Sound judgment can only occur with sufficient information.
If a company can show that it considered all of the factors in its hiring decision and did not just set a blanket prohibition based on criminal history records, then it should have nothing to worry about. Those companies would not only hire the best employees available, but they would also be well positioned to defend a claim of disparate impact discrimination effectively.
The best practice is to reserve the use of a background check until a conditional offer of employment is made. Then, if a candidate has failed to disclose criminal history through the hiring process, the decision is easy because it is based on failing the test of honesty. Assuming everything is disclosed, the employer simply must consider whether a candidate’s criminal history is a deal breaker.
For example, a teaching applicant with a history of indecent assault against minors or a bus driver applicant with multiple, recent drunk driving convictions are not likely to be hired for those positions. In fact, hiring those applicants under those circumstances could expose the employer to a claim of negligent hiring if the unthinkable happens.
If a background check is undertaken, it should be thorough if an employer wants to effectively manage the risk of hiring a bad employee. A background check should not merely check criminal history but all references, former employers and others who might know information pertaining to the candidate’s suitability for a particular position.
Most people would never dream of making a substantial purchase sight-unseen, yet many companies do just that and wish, after the fact, that they had done more due diligence. Once a decision is made to bring someone on board, the real danger is not in knowing too much, but in knowing too little.
You’re Fired
Preventing discrimination charges and EPL lawsuits after an employee termination
by Catherine M. Padalino
Employment discrimination charges have hit an all-time high, as jilted workers who believe they have been unjustly terminated are increasingly looking to sue their former employers. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), there were 99,947 discrimination charge filings in 2011—the highest number of filings in the agency’s reporting history. And every one of these charges of misconduct must be defended by the employer. From class action lawsuits to single-plaintiff employment practices liability (EPL) litigation, businesses of all sizes are increasingly vulnerable, and the financial implications can be crippling for those that are ill prepared.
In insurer Chubb’s 2010 “Private Company Survey,” 36% of executives responded that an EPL lawsuit would cause the most financial damage to their companies. Of those companies that experienced an EPL charge or lawsuit in the past five years, 46% reported costs to the company ranging between $20,000 and $750,000, with an average loss of more than $50,000.
This trend is expected to continue as high layoff rates and extensive legislative reform have helped create an environment where it is almost expected that employees may look for cause to bring an EPL claim against their employer.
Economic and Regulatory Impact
The economic crisis and the nation’s subsequent lackluster recovery has had a significant impact on the increase in EPL lawsuits. As unemployment rates remain high and the time people are spending out of work increases, employees who have lost their jobs are more likely to file a lawsuit.
Laid-off workers with no new job on the horizon or those who have taken a job that pays less than their previous salary are looking to replace lost income. As a result, laid-off workers are seeking higher damages, and this raises the potential value of a lawsuit—an attractive feature for plaintiff attorneys.
Several new pieces of legislation have also enhanced opportunities for laid-off employees to sue their former employers. In November 2010, the EEOC issued final regulations regarding the Genetic Information Nondisclosure Act of 2008 (GINA), making it illegal to request and use genetic health information to discriminate against employees or applicants for employment. The legislation bars employers from using individuals’ genetic information to influence career-based decisions for a current or potential employee.
What Can Employers Do?
There are steps employers can take to help mitigate the risk, or at least help create a defense, if a former or current employee should bring an EPL lawsuit.
1. Stay abreast of the evolving legal landscape. In order to prevent gaps in your knowledge, remain up-to-date on legislation. Or consult with an attorney to help reduce the potential for losses.
2. In your risk management plan, include extensive policies to address workplace exposures relating to discrimination, harassment, hiring and termination.
3. Document appropriately. Evidence is a powerful tool during legal disputes. Documenting will enable you to, if necessary, offer proof of actions that were taken.
4. Train and educate your employees, managers and supervisors on policies and legal issues, making sure the front lines are aware of retaliation exposures.
5. Enforce policies fairly and consistently throughout your organization. This, more than anything else, will help reduce the potential for a suit.
While this is not an unreasonable piece of legislation in today’s world, where a significant amount of personal medical information can be easily accessed, it does add another avenue for legal action. Since the EEOC implemented the employment provisions of the act, several hundred GINA-related lawsuits have been pursued.
An Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) change in 2009 has also sparked an increase in claims. The amendment broadened the interpretation of “disability” qualifiers, specifically what is meant by “major life activities”—now anything from walking to learning is included in the act. Since more employees are considered disabled under the expanded definition, employers’ exposure to such claims has increased and does not appear to be slowing down.
For the second consecutive year, the leading charge filed with the EEOC is retaliation: a trend that is expected to continue. Retaliatory discrimination claims are particularly challenging for employers. Recent laws, such as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, both of which contain protections for whistleblowers, have opened the floodgates for retaliation claims.
The EEOC has determined that an employer can be brought up on retaliatory charges if any adverse action is taken against an employee who has a discrimination complaint. This all-encompassing language not only protects people with legitimate claims but may also give leverage to claimants with weak allegations.
Beyond the lagging economy, an ever-evolving legal landscape has played a role in the uptick of activity in EPL lawsuits. Employers can face serious financial repercussions when legal action is taken by an employee.
By observing best practices, employers can further help mitigate their risk with employment practices liability insurance. Employers can partner with their insurance agent and carrier to tap into EPL loss prevention tools and resources to assist them in navigating these often murky waters and staying out of the courtroom. ..Source.. by Catherine M. Padalino is a vice president and worldwide employment practices liability product manager at the Chubb Group of Insurance Companies. -AND- Mike Farnan is assistant general counsel with the Monaca, Pennsylvania-based investigative firm CSI, where he deals with legal issues related to investigations. -AND- Jessica Milko is director of investigative research at the Monaca, Pennsylvania-based investigative firm CSI.
April 28, 2012
EEOC Issues Enforcement Guidance
FSOs and their families should take a close look at the Q&A link, there are other important links in it, "Prohibited Practices," that may help some..with certain types of jobs.4-28-2012 National:
Commission Updates Guidance on Employer Use of Arrest and Conviction Records
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today issued an updated Enforcement Guidance on employer use of arrest and conviction records in employment decisions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (Title VII). The Commission today voted 4-1 to approve the guidance document. The Commission also issued a Question-and-Answer (Q&A) document about the guidance. The Enforcement Guidance and Q&A document will be available on the EEOC’s website at www.eeoc.gov.
“When the Commission met publicly to discuss this subject in July, 2011, I said that I hoped the meeting would help to inform the Commission’s consideration of revisions to existing EEOC guidance. We had excellent testimony from two public meetings and hundreds of written comments submitted by a diverse group of commenters to inform our deliberations concerning the new guidance,” said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. Chair Berrien added, “The new guidance clarifies and updates the EEOC’s longstanding policy concerning the use of arrest and conviction records in employment, which will assist job seekers, employees, employers, and many other agency stakeholders.”
While Title VII does not prohibit an employer from requiring applicants or employees to provide information about arrests, convictions or incarceration, it is unlawful to discriminate in employment based on race, color, national origin, religion, or sex. The guidance builds on longstanding guidance documents that the EEOC issued over twenty years ago. The Commission originally issued three separate policy documents in February and July 1987 under Chair Clarence Thomas and in September 1990 under Chair Evan Kemp explaining when the use of arrest and conviction records in employment decisions may violate Title VII. The Commission also held public meetings on the subject in 2008 and 2011. The Enforcement Guidance issued today is predicated on, and supported by, federal court precedent concerning the application of Title VII to employers’ consideration of a job applicant or employee’s criminal history and incorporates judicial decisions issued since passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The guidance also updates relevant data, consolidates previous EEOC policy statements on this issue into a single document and illustrates how Title VII applies to various scenarios that an employer might encounter when considering the arrest or conviction history of a current or prospective employee. Among other topics, the guidance discusses:
How an employer’s use of an individual’s criminal history in making employment decisions could violate the prohibition against employment discrimination under Title VII;The materials for the public meetings held on the use of arrest and conviction records, including testimony and transcripts, are available at http://eeoc.gov/eeoc/meetings/index.cfm.
Federal court decisions analyzing Title VII as applied to criminal record exclusions;
The differences between the treatment of arrest records and conviction records;
The applicability of disparate treatment and disparate impact analysis under Title VII;
Compliance with other federal laws and/or regulations that restrict and/or prohibit the employment of individuals with certain criminal records; and
Best practices for employers.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov. ..Source.. Press Release
July 20, 2010
ACTION ALERT: The Senate will be voting on HR 5618 "Unemployment Benefits" bill this afternoon
7-20-2010 Washington DC:
Tuesday is here and the Senate is scheduled -in the afternoon- to vote on HR-5618, the "Unemployment Benefits" bill. At this time, I can find no evidence that the harmful provision has been removed from the bill. It looks like the bill will pass with the harmful provision in it. In case there is anyone who does not know what it says, here it is:‘‘(2) ensure that benefits under this Act are not provided to any individual convicted of a sex offense against a minor (as such terms are defined in section 111 of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16911)); andThere is no doubt the nation needs this bill, but the above provision certainly is not needed as it provides no public safety under any construction, it is nothing but a hateful insertion. I do suggest folks continue to contact their representatives in Washington and explain the harm this provision will cause to those affected by it, and do not forget to include the harm to families in your messages.
I strongly suggest folks continue to contact Washington people, Representatives, Senators and their aides; light up their switchboard. Make this a every Monday chore, as we all know the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Maybe some sort of investigation could be started; and maybe thats wishful thinking. Simply do not give up, two other bills also have similar damaging language in them.
Also recommended, is, everyone affected needs to start contacting every branch of the ACLU nationwide, in hopes one of them will get the ball rolling to start a lawsuit. However, that suit will need a Plaintiff, someone will have to step forward and put their name on it. That is simply how the courts work, and there is no way around it.
While I'm sure, if the ACLU takes up the fight, they will look to file with John/Jane Does, but behind those Does must be real people. The best possible scenario -for the lawsuit- will be a family with children where the RSO is the one being denied unemployment benefits; spouses could add their names to the suit as well.
It will be a long fight, but I do believe that if it gets into court, the court will see the unnecessary harm it is causing and stop it with a quickness, but it must get into court.
In closing, if there is anyone who does not know what going on with this bill, and two others, Small Business Loans and FHA Mortgages, you can read the following:
Who is pushing the agenda to deny certain former sex offenders, federal benefits?
ACTION ALERT: More on denying certain sex offenders, mortgages..
Sex Offenders, Poison Pills, Wrecking Amendments, Politicians and the "Sex Offender Registry."
UPDATE: Sex Offenders and the FHA Reform Act of 2010 (Housing Issues)
ACTION ALERT: Sex Offenders and the FHA Reform Act of 2010 (Housing Issues)
Have a great day & a better tomorrow,
eAdvocate
July 15, 2010
Who is pushing the agenda to deny certain former sex offenders, federal benefits?
7-15-2010:
Recently there has been three pieces of legislation, all good in their own right, but somehow they have been amended -after being introduced- to include, in essence, verbiage to exclude certain previously convicted sex offenders, from receiving the benefits of that legislation.
In each bill the sex offenders chosen to be denied the benefits of the bill, are those former offenders who were convicted of a sex crime against a minor. At this time we cannot tell if it is just those still on a registry or anyone ever convicted of such a crime. None of these former offenders have committed any recent conduct to warrant such a denial. In fact, it appears they are being targeted because of their earlier conviction and not because of any public safety reason. There appears to be a "HATE" factor in these amendments.
The bills in question are: 1) HR-5072 FHA Reform Act of 2010 (Introduced 4-20-10 by Rep. Waters (D-CA-35)); 2) HR-5297 Small Business Lending Fund Act of 2010 (Introduced 5-13-10 by Rep. Frank (D-MA-4); and 3) HR-5618 Restoration of Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 2010 (Introduced 6-28-10 by Rep. McDermott (D-WA-7). All bills introduced by Democrats.
Given all this was happening -at the same time- it was critical to find out who was inserting these amendments and why, and what basis there were claiming.
A review of the Thomas website for HR-5072 "FHA" revealed that, during debate on the House floor on 6-10, Rep. Edwards (D-TX-17) proposed an amendment to insert the questionable verbiage and it was approved. His only basis was "They do it under HUD law," which is not correct. HUD denies an application for housing of certain former offenders (those listed on a state sex offender registry -for a lifetime-). There it is easy to see a possible public safety context, not found by denying different former sex offenders, a possible FHA loan (no public safety context). Exactly how that occurred is documented in an earlier commentary.
However, what happened with HR-5072 "FHA" did not happen with the other two bills. Whatever happened with those bills was deeper into the workings of the House and not easily seen with a simple review of the Thomas website. Accordingly, the purpose here is to document EXACTLY what occurred with HR-5297 "Small Business" and HR-5618 "Unemployment Benefits."
First it must be noted that, what Rep. Edwards (D-TX-17) did on the House floor on 6-10, seems to have been morphed into a quasi-boilerplate package which is being inserted into other bills (HR-5297 "Small Business" and HR-5618 "Unemployment Benefits"); HR-5297 on 6-14 and HR-5618 on 6-30.
How this quasi-boilerplate package is being inserted into the other two bills, is even more cunning. The House Rules Committee based on H.Res. 1436 submitted to that committee by Rep. Pingree (D-ME-1) -and- H.Res. 1495 submitted to that committee by Rep. Cardoza (D-CA-10), respectively, approved the quasi-boilerplate language to amend those bills. In addition the Rules Committee also added language preventing anyone from further amending those bills.
Quasi-boilerplate Language:
HR-5297: House Report 111-506, H.Res. 1436 "(2) LOAN RECIPIENTS.—With respect to funds received by an eligible institution under the Program, any business receiving a loan from the eligible institution using such funds after the date of the enactment of this title shall certify to such eligible institution that the principals of such business have not been convicted of a sex offense against a minor (as such terms are defined in section 111 of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16911)). "
HR-5618: House Report 111-519, H.Res. 1495 "(2) ensure that benefits under this Act are not provided to any individual convicted of a sex offense against a minor (as such terms are defined in section 111 of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16911)); and"
That Rules Committee action prevents anyone from removing such quasi-boilerplate language and the denial to those certain former sex offenders becomes a retroactive LIFETIME punishment of sorts. All based on "HATRED" of the earlier crime committed by those offenders; no public safety context for either bill.
It appears the Committee on the Rules quasi-boilerplate package inserted -bill after bill-, and possibly in the future too, has all the earmarks of a Bill of Pains and Penalties (a subset of a Bill of Attainder), both prohibited by the U.S. Constitution Article 1 Sec. 9 (Federal) and Sec. 10 (States).
Singling out certain former sex offenders who are American citizens, for special pains and penalties based on "HATRED" of their crimes and no other basis, while ignoring every other type of crime, including murder, also seems to violate equal protections clauses, and possibly other constitutional protections. Targeting of former offenders is preventing them from reintegrating back into the community, and making them and their families very unsafe, and unable to support families.
The specific details of how this was uncovered is documented below bill-by-bill, and can be verified by a lawyer as this writer is not one.
In closing, this writer wonders, who is pushing this agenda? Further, all of those mentioned above are Democrats, which tweaks my nose, if that has any meaning. Its time for someone else to take this and find an EFFECIVE resolution to stop the carnage of certain former sex offenders, citizens of the United States!
End of Commentary!
HR-5072 (FHA Reform Act of 2010) (Introduced 4-20-10 by Rep. Waters (D-CA-35).Thomas has four versions of this bill. Neither ver.-1 or ver.-2 make any mention of sex offenders. However, ver-3 and vers.-4 mention sex offenders.This bill was amended on 6-10-10 on the House Floor by Rep. Edwards (D-TX-17). The full explanation of how he amended this bill is in an earlier commentary (Click on Link). No need to repeat all of that here.
HR-5297 (Small Business Lending Fund Act of 2010) (Introduced 5-13-10 by Rep. Frank (D-MA-4).Thomas has four versions of this bill. Neither ver.-1 nor vers.-2 make any mention of sex offenders. However, ver.-3 and ver.-4 mention sex offenders. This leaves the question "How did ver.-3 get changed in the House?"
Under "All Congressional Actions with Amendments" the Thomas site says these actions occurred:
6/14/2010 7:34pm:
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 1436 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 5486 and H.R. 5297 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Specified amendments are in order. All points of order against consideration of each bill except for clauses 9 and 10 or rule XXI are waived.
6/15/2010 3:35pm:
Rule H. Res. 1436 passed House.
6/16/2010 10:33am:
Ms. Bean asked unanimous consent that the instruction in the amendment printed in part B of House Report 111-506 relating to page 11, line8, be considered to refer to section 4(d)(2)(A) of the matter proposed to be inserted by the amendment printed in part A of such report, as amended by the amendment in part B of such report. Agreed to without objection.
Above shows that the Rules Committee AMENDED HR-5297 AFTER it was introduced. A review of House Report 111-506 reveals that the Rules Committee put the amendment concerning certain sex offenders into HR-5297. See House Report 111-506 page 36.
(2) LOAN RECIPIENTS.—With respect to funds received by an eligible institution under the Program, any business receiving a loan from the eligible institution using such funds after the date of the enactment of this title shall certify to such eligible institution that the principals of such business have not been convicted of a sex offense against a minor (as such terms are defined in section 111 of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16911)).
As best as I can see, this amendment was proposed (6-14) to the Rules Committee by Ms. Pingree (D-ME-1)(Her website) through H. Res. 1436 and adopted by the House (that amendment prohibits any further amendments)
HR-5618 (Restoration of Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 2010) (Introduced 6-28-10 by Rep. McDermott (D-WA-7).
Thomas has two versions of this bill. Vers.-1 makes no mention of sex offenders. However, vers.-2 mentions of sex offenders. This leaves the question "How did vers.-2 get changed in the House?"
Under "All Congressional Actions with Amendments" the Thomas site says these actions occurred:
6/30/2010 7:20pm:
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 1495 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 5618 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Bill is closed to amendments. The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment printed in this report shall be considered as adopted. The resolution waives all points of order against the bill, as amended.
7/1/2010 12:52pm:
Rule H. Res. 1495 passed House.
7/1/2010 1:09pm:
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 1495. (consideration: CR H5321-5327)
7/1/2010 1:09pm:
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 5618 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Bill is closed to amendments. The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment printed in this report shall be considered as adopted. The resolution waives all points of order against the bill, as amended.
7/1/2010 1:11pm:
H.AMDT.715 Amendment reported by the House Committee on Rules.
Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 1495, the amendment printed in House Report 111-519 is adopted.
7/1/2010 1:12pm:
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 5618.
Above shows that the Rules Committee AMENDED HR-5618 AFTER it was introduced. A review of House Report 111-519 reveals that the Rules Committee put the amendment concerning certain sex offenders into HR-5618. See House Report 111-519:
‘‘(2) ensure that benefits under this Act are not provided to any individual convicted of a sex offense against a minor (as such terms are defined in section 111 of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16911)); and
As best as I can see, this amendment was proposed (6-30) to the Rules Committee by Mr. Cardoza (D-CA-18)(His website) through H. Res. 1495 and adopted by the House (the amendment prohibits any further amendments).
END of POST
July 13, 2010
Unemployment Extension HR 5618 might be passed by end of week
7-13-2010 Washington DC:
It is critical to contact your representatives in Washington, because HR 5618 "Unemployment Benefits Extension" which contains the disastrous provision to stop any sex offender who has been convicted of a crime against a minor from receiving unemployment benefits. See the following:
H.R.5618 Is Best Chance for the Unemployed to Get Unemployment Benefits Flowing Again Within a Week
Before Congress recessed for the July 4 holiday, the House of Representatives passed a standalone unemployment benefits extension measure, H.R.5618. The Senate, having failed to reach cloture on H.R.4213, an umbrella bill that included unemployment extensions, as well as Medicaid provisions for the states, for the fourth time in June, had recessed the evening before, basically putting the bill on hold until after the recess, and relegating those who had lost their unemployment and those whose extensions had expired since June 2 to limbo until after the July 4 recess. For rest of article by Saul Relative
July 9, 2010
ACTION ALERT: Congress stops certain sex offenders from receiving money under TWO federal programs!
7-9-2010 Washington DC:
Congress will now prevent certain sex offenders (whether required to register or not [i.e., registration terms completed]) from receiving A) Unemployment benefits; AND B) Small business loans, if these TWO bills ultimately become law.
Unemployment Benefits:
On 6-28-2010 Rep. Jim McDermott (WA-7) introduced HR 5618 (OC - WW - GT)"Restoration of Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 2010" a necessary bill, with a disastrous provision built into it. The bill was co-sponsored by Rep. Sander M. Levin (MI-12).
Within the bill is the following:
(h) Procedures- Any State with an agreement under this Act shall implement reasonable procedures to--
`(2) ensure that benefits under this Act are not provided to any individual convicted of a sex offense against a minor (as such terms are defined in section 111 of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16911)); and ...
Small Business Loans:
On 5-13-2010 Rep. Barney Frank (MA-4) introduced HR 5297 (OC - WW - GT)"Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010" also a necessary bill. The bill has 20 co-sponsors. The bill as introduced had nothing about sex offenders, the House passed the bill and sent it to the Senate. On 6-29-2010 in the Senate there were 23 or so amendments, somewhere buried in those amendments a Senator added the provision concerning certain sex offenders.
Within the bill is the following:
(2) LOAN RECIPIENTS- With respect to funds received by an eligible institution under the Program, any business receiving a loan from the eligible institution using such funds after the date of the enactment of this title shall certify to such eligible institution that the principals of such business have not been convicted of a sex offense against a minor (as such terms are defined in section 111 of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16911)).
Discussion:
There is no doubt in this writer's mind that both of these are based on "HATE" and not any context of safety of the community. Congress cannot base law on "HATE" that simply violates our Constitution. In fact, Congress is supposed to make laws to prevent such, as hate too often leads to violence; history tells us so. What makes this even more egregious is that, lawmakers know this violates constitutional protections, especially since many are lawyers.
Obviously the "Unemployment Benefits" affect far more folks than do the "Small Business Loans" so the greatest effort must be directed to HR-5618.
A few thoughts, first is, that how can Congress deny folks unemployment benefits when folks have paid a portion of their salary, as had the employer, to fund unemployment benefits. These monies have already been collected, and benefits accrued.
While it is true that, this bill is a supplemental bill to extend money available to pay additional benefits beyond what is normal, and maybe some may say, we can deny any based on that theory. The reality is, that would raise a equal treatment under the law issue. Workers are workers, equal footing in the national work force, and must be treated equally, they all have put in their time, and there is no misconduct.
While I can't say I am a Guru of employment law, my heart tells me that, many labor laws -state and federal- would have to be addressed before Congress is permitted this type of labor law amendment, esp. since some folks may have worked under a union contract.
What can be done:
HR-5618 "Unemployment Benefits" is still in the Senate and that is where folks must focus efforts. It is in some committee and unfortunately the Thomas site doesn't tell us which one. This committee needs to be contacted as soon as folks find out which one it is.
It is time for EVERYONE (includes moms, dads, aunts, and anyone else in the family) to be e-mailing, faxing, calling and writing their Representives and Seantors in Congress to get this changed and removed from both of these bills.
I wish I had more, but right now I think it more important to get this message out to everyone, rather than do more research. I'll post an update if I find more.
For now, have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
