The EEOC: That's Entertainment

The EEOC, just like the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, is entertaining the idea that convicts should have stronger rights to sue employers that choose not to consider them for jobs.

It's an entertaining idea. My print column is up.

UPDATE: A recent case of a convict trying to sue his way into a job.

A man who has been in state prison twice for at least three counts of robbery really wants to work at Red Lobster. So much so that he's suing the seafood chain to hire him, alleging that the manager at the Times Square branch rejected his application because of his criminal history which is discrimination. And the (New York) Post's experts "say he has a case."

Robert Smith applied for a "kitchen help" position in February by completing an application online and "honestly answered the form's question about prior convictions." He never heard from them, so when he called (and got through on his fifth try), manager Nicole McVaughn allegedly told him, "I'm sorry to have to give you this info, but in my position as manager I don't hire convicted felons." At which point, the Post explains, "The robster saw red."

The "case" the "robster" has to bring is thanks to past rulings of liberal judges and government agencies like the EEOC, that have twisted civil rights laws to mean.

Clearly, no state legislature nor Congress meant to include convicted criminals as a protected class, and yet here we are with the EEOC and others proclaiming such legal protection based on "disparate impact" and imposing on business owners regulations that no normal person would think fair or sane.

It is one thing to suggest that giving ex-cons a second chance is a nice and good thing to do. It is quite another to require it under penalty of a government sponsored-lawsuit.