MEL WATT, 72, FANNIE MAE CHIEF, INVESTIGATED FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIM BY FEMALE EMPLOYEE (#MeToo)

MEL WATT, 72, FANNIE MAE CHIEF, INVESTIGATED FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIM BY FEMALE EMPLOYEE (#MeToo):

FANNIE MAE OWNS THE LOANS FOR MANY U.S. MILITARY VETERAN HOMEOWNERS.

U.S. MILITARY VETERAN HOMEOWNERS ARE LOSING THEIR HOMES UNDER FANNIE MAE'S LEADERSHIP......WHY??

IF U.S. MILITARY VET HOMEOWNERS EXPERIENCE HARDSHIPS, WHY NOT TRANSFER THOSE LOANS TO VETERANS AFFAIRS ADMIN?

THE SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIM IS BEING THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED BY A FEDERAL AGENCY.

THE VICTIM HAS HIRED A VERY REPUTABLE ATTORNEY.

MEL WATT IS A CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA NATIVE & FORMER U.S. CONGRESS MEMBER.

MEL WATT IS AN OBAMA ADMIN HOLDOVER. HIS FIVE-YR TERM ENDS IN 2019.

DRAIN THE SWAMP.


Post Sources: Politico, Charlotte Observer, Daily Caller, Youtube


****** **** Federal housing leader Mel Watt under investigation for sexual harassment claim


Mel Watt, a former Democratic congressman from Charlotte who now heads a federal housing agency, is under investigation for harassment of a female employee.

Politico first reported the allegations Friday, citing documents and partial transcripts of conversations between Watt and the employee, which the story did not name. The story describes three 2016 incidents of Watt making sexual advances on the woman.

A statement from Watt through the Federal Housing Finance Agency to McClatchy confirmed an ongoing investigation, as did an attorney for the woman.

“The selective leaks related to this matter are obviously intended to embarrass or to lead to an unfounded or political conclusion.

However, I am confident that the investigation currently in progress will confirm that I have not done anything contrary to law. I will have no further comment while the investigation is in progress,” said Watt, who is the agency’s director.

The investigation began a month or two ago, said Diane Seltzer Torre, an attorney for the woman who alleges the harassment.

Torre said the investigation is being conducted by an official with the U.S. Postal Service. It is typical for an outside agency to investigate claims such as these.

My client did not submit information to the media. She is not looking for attention and doesn’t want to talk to the media,” Torre said.

Torre declined to identify her client nor would she discuss her client’s employment status with the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

She said she is not aware of any other complaints against Watt.

Watt, 72, represented Charlotte in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1993 to 2014, when he was tapped by President Barack Obama to head the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

The agency oversees Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and FHLBanks, which provide nearly $6 trillion for mortgage markets and financial institutions, according to FHFA.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency was created after the housing crash in 2008 and it serves as the conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Watt was confirmed by the Senate 57-41 months after he was nominated. Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina was one of two Republicans to back Watt’s nomination.

Watt’s five-year term is set to expire in January. Watt is still on the job, a spokeswoman for the agency said.

Watt, an attorney, is married and has two grown children and three grandchildren, according to his FHFA bio.

A Mecklenburg County native, Watt graduated from UNC-Chapel Hill before earning a law degree at Yale. He served one term in the North Carolina state senate.

While in the U.S. House in 2011, Watt tried to slash funding for the Office of Congressional Ethics by 40 percent, a move that was soundly defeated.

Watt and seven colleagues were investigated and cleared by the office for fundraising that took place before a key House vote.

In 2008, Watt had voted to create the Office of Congressional Ethics.

“I wouldn’t call it a ‘personal vendetta,’” Watt told McClatchy at the time. “But I also wouldn’t deny that my experiences had something to do with my view of this agency.”

DMSI Staffing (ROSS): HIRING! 1000 Retail Drive, Fort Mill, S.C. But NO BLACKS Wanted!

(THIS IS NOT A JOKE!)

NOW HIRING:

DMSI STAFFING (ROSS) ON 1000 RETAIL DRIVE, FORT MILL, SC 29715
(803) 396-2417

However Only Mexicans, Cambodian Refugees & WHITE People are actually Guaranteed Employment!!

I wanted to re-post this information just to remind the American People that Widespread EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION is Alive & Well in this Country; especially in the Southern States.

Now When is Congress going to begin Enforce Federal Employment Anti-Discrimination Laws already on the books, so that American Businesses receiving Tax Breaks & Tax Subsidies will NOT be allowed to Practice the Illegal Activity I have described in this Job Advertisement?

FYI:

This is a REAL Company in South Carolina. And YES the Site Manager at this Office Location is Blatantly Conducting Employment Discrimination against BLACK Applicants. I was Informed so I checked it out for myself.


EMPLOYER:

DMSI STAFFING (ROSS)
1000 Retail Drive, Fort Mill, SC 29715
(803) 396-2417

POSITIONS:
General Warehouse Labor, Packers, Loading & Shipping Clerks, Forklift Drivers

SALARY:

$7.00 - $8.00 Per Hour plus Bonuses/ 40-Hours Weekly/ Temp-to-Perm

All BLACK Applicants Must be willing to Complete a Writing, Literacy & Math Test.

All BLACK Applicants Must be willing to Submit to a Drug Test, Criminal Background Check & possibly a Credit Check too.

All BLACK Applicants Must be willing to Submit to an E-Verify Immigration Status Check.

I'M TOTALLY SERIOUS!!

However.......

Mexicans, Cambodian Refugees & WHITE People don't have to worry about such things (Writing, Literacy & Math Test, Drug Test, E-Verify Immigration Status Check, Criminal Background Check & possibly a Credit Check.)

Because at DSMI Staffing (ROSS) on 1000 Retail Drive in Fort Mill, South Carolina
Only Mexicans, Cambodian Refugees & WHITE People are actually Guaranteed Employment.

(I REPEAT: THIS IS A REAL COMPANY IN SOUTH CAROLINA.)






View Larger Map


Sources: DMSI Staffing, Facebook, Youtube, Google Maps

David Parker Holds News Conference! Perdue Ignored Gay Sex Harassment Scandal Until It Went Public

North Carolina's Racially-Divided Democratic Party is Rocked by yet Another Scandal involving Corruption among its Leadership.

This time the Scandal involves Gay Sexual Harassment & Retaliation Allegations.

NC Gov. Bev Perdue previously Investigated for Campaign Finance Corruption, Chose to Ignore this Dirty Scandal and Intervene ONLY after this story was leaked to the National Public.

Jay Parmley, North Carolina's Executive Director of the Democratic Party, Resigned amid Gay Sexual Harassment Claims.

David Parker, Chairman of the North Carolina Democratic Party is also Expected to Resign Amid Sexual Harassment Claims.





David Parker, North Carolina Democratic Party Chair, Expected To Resign Amid Controversy

David Parker, chairman of the Democratic Party in North Carolina, is expected to step down amid allegations that he helped facilitate a plot to cover up claims of sexual harassment by a former staffer who left the party last year.

Parker had previously sounded defiant, but Gov. Bev Perdue (D) on Tuesday capped off a chorus of Democratic voices that have come forward this week to express their concern that Parker's continued leadership is a distraction for the party.

Perdue told Parker that "he had lost the confidence of Democratic leaders, and I asked him to step aside for the good of the party," the Raleigh News & Observer reports. She had earlier faced tough questioning on the matter, but insisted it was an "internal personnel matter" before telling a persistent reporter to "get over it." Lt. Gov. Walter Dalton also spoke in favor of Parker's resignation on Tuesday.

Their comments came shortly after five top Democratic officials, including the secretary of state and state treasurer, released a statement demanding Parker's resignation and claiming that "change needs to be made as we prepare for the general election in November."

The controversy over a former staffer who came forward with sexual harassment allegations escalated Friday, when emails regarding the account were obtained by the News & Observer.

From their report:

The emails included questions from a member of the state's executive committee about a financial settlement and nondisclosure agreement with a former staffer who left the party in November after complaining about being sexually harassed by a senior staff member.

The emails did not identify the staffers nor discuss the actions that constituted harassment.

The situation is particularly sensitive for North Carolina Democrats, who will play host to the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte this summer.

Read more at the Raleigh News & Observer.




Penis picture, gay sex descriptions among sexual harassment allegations against NC Democrat


A bombshell letter from the former North Carolina Democratic Party (NCDP) communications staffer to now-former NCDP Executive Director Jay Parmley detailing the allegations of sexual harassment has surfaced.

In the letter, dated Dec. 8, 2011 — which local news outlet WRAL first published with redactions of alleged victim Adriadn Ortega’s name — Ortega alleges that Parmley “frequently gave me unwanted shoulder rubs despite my verbal objections” and that Parmley “often solicited my opinion on his clothes.”

“He would point both hands to his crotch area and ask me how his crotch looked in those pants that day,” Ortega wrote, adding that Parmley “would frequently pretend to punch my crotch and make a popping noise with his mouth.”

“On July 28, 2011, the executive director discussed, in detail, his sexual activities from the past when he was living in South Carolina,” Ortega then said. “In addition, he discussed in detail his sexual activities from when he moved to North Carolina, where he solicited sex from gay websites such as [REDACTED].”

The next day — on July 29, 2011 — Ortega alleged that Parmley “showed me a picture of a penis.”

“And, on September 6, 2011, during the drive back from the DNC Kick-Off in Charlotte, the executive director reached back several times from the driver’s seat and caressed my leg,” Ortega added.

Ortega said he raised concerns about this behavior — which he described as sexual harassment — with Parmley on Oct. 1, 2011. Two days later, he went to former NCDP Executive Director Scott Falmlen to discuss the behavior as well. Ortega said Falmlen described him as a “valuable employee,” but Parmley turned around and fired him on Nov. 21, 2011.

In the letter, Ortega said he believes he was “fired in retaliation for my complaints of sexual harassment.”

Ortega then said he would sign a “separation agreement, confidentiality agreement and release” on the condition that he got a financial settlement package. The package he requested to stay quiet was a “provision of severance compensation equal to one year’s pay” and “with regards to health insurance, NCDP will cover the cost of my COBRA for one year or until I find employment with health coverage, whichever comes first.”

The exact value of the financial settlement package Ortega received for signing the non-disclosure agreement he later signed is at this point unclear. NCDP officials have continually refused to answer questions about it.

NCDP spokesman Walton Robinson has not responded to any of The Daily Caller’s requests for comment on this scandal, and did not answer when asked for comment about this letter.

After TheDC broke this story last week, Parmley resigned on Sunday. Since then, a chorus of high-profile Democrats have demanded the immediate resignation of Parmley’s boss, NCDP Chairman David Parker. North Carolina’s Democratic Gov. Bev Perdue, the highest profile official to demand Parker’s resignation, admitted that she has been aware of the allegations of sexual harassment since “late last year.” She called for Parker’s resignation only after telling a reporter who asked about the scandal to “get over it

Late on Wednesday, Parker defied Perdue and publicly refused to step aside amid the scandal and subsequent appearance of a cover-up. “There was no cover-up and that the personnel matter was professionally and appropriately handled by the party’s attorney using the highest ethical standards.”

Before this new letter surfaced, Perdue responded to Parker’s public defiance and refusal to resign by saying that wasn’t acceptable. According to local news reports, Perdue said Parker “needs to go.”

Brad Crone, a North Carolina Democratic campaign consultant, told TheDC that he thinks this letter proves even more so that Parker needs to resign.

“This story is spiraling out of control and is damaging the party in ways we cannot imagine,” Crone wrote in an email. “I do not understand how Chairman Parker is willing to put himself before the interest of the party. The Democratic Party is bigger than one person, it’s sad that Chairman Parker doesn’t realize that fact. This letter is devastating and shows a real lack in judgment in managing the senior staff. Clearly, it’s time for Chairman Parker to resign and do it now.”

White House spokesman Eric Schultz, Democratic National Committee spokesman Brad Woodhouse and Obama re-election campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt have not returned any of TheDC’s requests for comment on the issue.

Even so, Obama is scheduled to visit North Carolina next Tuesday. “Next week we’ll find out whether or not he has the support of President Obama,” North Carolina GOP spokesman Rob Lockwood told TheDC.


Letter details allegations of sexual harassment by ex-director of N.C. Democratic Party

A former staffer accused the North Carolina Democratic Party’s executive director of caressing his leg and discussing his sexual exploits, according to a new document obtained by The (Raleigh) News & Observer.

The sexual harassment allegations are detailed in a Dec. 8 letter from Adriadn Ortega, a former party staffer, to then-executive director Jay Parmley. Ortega claimed he was “fired in retaliation for my complaints of sexual harassment” and asked for a severance equal to his annual pay and health care coverage for a year.

His allegations match those detailed in a complaint filed Jan. 31 with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission obtained by The N&O. The EEOC complaint stated that Ortega tracked the alleged harassment in a notebook.

Ortega, 26, did not respond to questions. Parmley, 41, could not be reached for comment. He resigned Sunday but denied harassing any employee. He blamed political reasons for his departure.

The letter became public minutes after state party chairman David Parker refused to resign under pressure from party leaders, including Gov. Bev Perdue, who asked him to step aside “for the good of the party.” In a statement, Parker, 57, a Statesville lawyer, said he had the “strong support” of the party’s executive council.

“They have consulted with our party attorney and are clearly as satisfied as I am that there was no cover up and that the personnel matter was professionally and appropriately handled by the party’s attorney,” according to his statement.

He called for a referendum June 17 on his chairmanship.

Perdue called Parker’s plan “totally unacceptable.” Parker’s top deputy, first vice-chair Gwen Wilkins, said Parker didn’t have the support of all executive council members. “The chairman needs to go,” Perdue said in a statement Wednesday evening.

Settlement confirmed

As chairman, Parker authorized a settlement agreement with Ortega. It’s unclear whether the terms of the severance Ortega put forth in the letter were met, but party officials confirmed the agreement’s existence. The settlement includes a confidentiality agreement, which Ortega wrote in his letter that he would sign.

Parker could not be reached for comment.

In the letter, Ortega says Parmley:

• Frequently gave him unwanted shoulder rubs despite verbal objections.

• Pointed to his crotch area and asked how his crotch looked in his pants.

• On July 28, detailed his past sexual activities.

• On July 29, showed Ortega a picture of a penis.

• On Sept. 6, caressed Ortega’s leg as they drove back from a Democratic convention kick-off in Charlotte.

In the letter, Ortega writes that he confronted Parmley on Oct. 1, and met two days later with Scott Falmlen, a former state party executive director, to discuss the situation. Falmlen recalled the conversation, but said Ortega didn’t share the “salacious specifics ... I have seen for the first time tonight.”

In the EEOC complaint, Ortega said he was no longer harassed after the meeting. But he was fired Nov. 21.

In his letter, he defended his work as a tracker, a party operative who follows opposition candidates and takes video of their speeches.

“I believe that the sexual harassment towards me created an offensive, hostile work environment,” Ortega wrote.

Ortega, who started working for the party in March 2010, asked for a settlement equivalent to his pay. He made roughly $20,000 a year, according to campaign-finance reports.

He gave the party a week to respond, threatening to make a complaint to the party’s executive council or pursue legal action.

Late Wednesday, Democratic Party attorney John Wallace released a statement saying “in this type of situation, it is difficult if not impossible, to ascertain the truth.”

He said the terms of the agreement were confidential, but Ortega “acknowledged that he had a satisfactory working relationship with the Democratic Party.”

The News & Observer began investigating Ortega’s departure in December. The state party refused to comment at the time, calling it a personnel matter. Ortega also initially denied being harassed and keeping a notebook.

The allegations did not become public until April 13, when party email messages were obtained by The News & Observer. The messages did not detail the allegations nor identify the individuals involved.

Parmley, who served less than a year at the helm of the party, denied harassing any employee and blamed right-wing political enemies for “spreading a false and misleading story.”


Jay Parmley, North Carolina Democratic Party Director, Resigns Amid Harassment Allegations

The executive director of the North Carolina Democratic Party has resigned amid concern among party activists about high turnover at the party headquarters and harassment allegations there.

Jay Parmley, who became the top administrator last year after holding a similar post in South Carolina, resigned Sunday.

He wrote in a resignation letter that he had "never harassed any employee at any time at the (state party) or in any other job."

State party leaders raised concerns after e-mails circulated last week that mentioned the allegations, which the party has not detailed.

State party chairman David Parker agreed that the issues involving Parmley were becoming a political distraction, particularly in an election year.

The Democratic National Convention will be held in Charlotte in less than five months.


View Larger Map

Sources: Daily Caller, Huffington Post, McClatchy Newspapers, WCNC, WRAL, Youtube, Google Maps

Warren Turner Wins Wrongful Termination Lawsuit! Re-Hired! Next: His Council Seat?

Former Charlotte Councilman Warren Turner reinstated to state probation job


Former Charlotte City Council member Warren Turner, fired in July 2010 from his job as a state probation officer, has been reinstated.

Turner began working again with the state probation office earlier this month as a judicial services coordinator in Gaston County.

Pamela Walker, the N.C. Department of Public Safety's deputy director of communications, told the Observer in a prepared statement Friday that Turner had been reinstated after the N.C. Department of Correction reviewed the appeal of his firing.



"After careful consideration of the issues raised by both Mr. Turner and the DOC, the parties have reached a mutual settlement agreement," Walker said in the statement. "The department reviewed Mr. Turner's level of career experience and agrees to his reinstatement."

The settlement agreement calls for Turner to receive back pay between the time of his firing and reinstatement. The state also will pay $10,000 to Turner's legal counsel to cover the cost of his appeal.

Walker said the settlement that led to Turner's reinstatement was reached before the appeal came before the N.C. Office of Administrative Hearings.

She also said Turner's annual salary of $41,451 is the same pay he received as a probation officer.

Judicial services coordinators are responsible for the intake of new probation cases, preparing pre-sentence reports and conducting initial risk-needs assessments.

Turner, 47, could not be reached for comment Friday. His attorney, Eric Montgomery, declined comment.

Montgomery said in 2010 that Turner would appeal his firing. He said the reasons listed by the DOC in the letter to Turner were "procedural BS."

Montgomery said the DOC decided it wanted to fire Turner and then looked for a way to do it.

Turner and his attorney have repeatedly said Turner didn't do anything wrong.

Turner, after eight years on the City Council, lost his bid for re-election in 2011. His last term was marred by accusations of sexual harassment.

A city investigation in 2010 found Turner had made sexually inappropriate comments to at least five female staff members. Turner denied the allegations. The City Council declined to censure him.

Turner was fired from his probation officer job for missing meetings or drug screenings with at least 14 probationers, according to a termination letter released by the DOC.

The DOC said Turner falsified at least one record of a home visit with a probationer. The agency also said Turner reported visiting with probationers on days that he was on leave or wasn't scheduled to work.

Turner also had been told not to conduct city business on state time, but then spent hours on his city-issued cellphone conducting city business during state work hours, according to the DOC. His actions, the agency said, were a "blatant disregard" of the earlier warning.

The DOC said it didn't find any evidence that Turner had made sexually inappropriate comments or harassed female probationers.

The Observer reported that in 2009 Mecklenburg County officials told Charlotte City Manager Curt Walton that they believed Turner had misrepresented himself as a county building inspector.

A woman told the Observer that Turner visited a construction site on South Tryon Street and showed his gun to laborers working there. She said he told them he was a building inspector and threatened to put them in jail if they didn't stop working on the house.

After the report, the DOC moved Turner to a desk job and took away his state-issued gun and car pending an investigation. The termination letter didn't address the allegation that Turner showed the laborers a gun.

Turner began his new job as judicial services coordinator Feb. 6. Coordinators do not carry weapons.

Turner has said repeatedly that he did nothing wrong.

Turner, a Democrat, had been a probation officer for 20 years. He was first elected to the City Council in 2003.


View Larger Map


Sources: McClatchy Newspapers, WCNC, Youtube, Google Maps

Black Job Applicants Turned Away Due To Unnecessary Credit & Criminal Background Checks

Blacks need not apply: Report shows rise in job discrimination

Today, it is estimated that 65 million U.S. adults have a criminal record and continue to face barriers to employment as a result.

According to a new report by the National Employment Law Project (NELP), the overuse of imposing criminal background checks and blanket bans against hiring people who have been charged with even a misdemeanor offense is a practice that has been adopted by at least 10 leading national employers, including Bank of America, Aramark, Lowe's, Domino's Pizza and Radio Shack, among others.

In 1987, the EEOC issued policy guidelines that determined barring people from employed based solely on a criminal conviction history disproportionately excluded African-Americans and Latinos from the labor market because they are overrepresented in the criminal justice system.

Just as it is illegal to overtly discriminate by race, ethnicity or skin color, it is also a violation of civil rights law for an employer to use non-job related selection criteria that disproportionately disadvantages people of color in hiring decisions.

Still, the violations are numerous and bold. NELP's four-month scan of Craigslist, which operates in more than 400 geographic areas of the U.S., documented more than 300 ads precluding the consideration of individuals with criminal conviction histories:

"No Exceptions!...No Misdemeanors and/or Felonies of any type ever in background."
"Do not apply with any misdemeanors/felonies."
"You must not have any felony or misdemeanor convictions on your record. Period."



Though each of these statements violate the EEOC prohibition against blanket bans, employers and their recruitment agencies continue to artificially and illegally limit the pool of qualified candidates for available jobs. The effects take not only a toll on resources in our institutions, as violations are now leading to considerable legal and community advocacy; they also take a human toll as well.

Darrell Langdon, from Chicago, struggled with addiction in his youth.

Despite this setback, he has persevered through the years, working as a boiler room fireman in the Chicago Public Schools and then as a mortgage broker. Though sober for more than 20 years, his 25-year-old felony conviction for possession of cocaine remains on record.

In 2008, Mr. Langdon applied to be a boiler room engineer in the schools. Despite the fact that he'd been clean for more than two decades and that he had prior experience in the schools, he was initially rejected for the job because of his conviction. It was only after Mr. Langdon's case benefited from substantial publicity, that the school system reversed its decision and hired him for the position in 2010.

"When they denied me for the job, I couldn't believe it, especially since it was because of something that happened way back then," said Mr. Langdon. "I just felt that there was no way they could deny me this job, so I went through the motions to contest it. I'm at work right now, and I feel great about it!"

Though research has confirmed that employment helps to thwart recidivism, and many of our public leaders, including U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis acknowledge employment as a pathway to help keep former incarcerated people "out of the legal system," our public policies and private employment practices often fail to consider long-term impact on our communities when people are illegally prevented from reclaiming their lives.

For example, Calvin Moore, who is 59 years old, grew up in a tough neighborhood in Washington, DC. He was convicted and served a 10-year sentence: 3 ½ years in prison, and the remaining 6 ½ years on parole.

Mr. Moore tried to start over and took college courses, but in the late 1980s, he again found himself face-to-face with the criminal system, after being unable to find a job. He was finally able to find various jobs that did not pay well, were hazardous to his health, and ultimately did not provide any benefits.

Over the years, Mr. Moore started developing some serious health problems from these poor jobs, and was forced to go on SSDI. Since August 2008, Mr. Moore has been out of work. He has been diligently looking for a job and since that time, has applied for over 42 jobs. Unfortunately, he's been turned down by all of them due to his criminal record.

In 2009, Mr. Moore went to the D.C. Employment Justice Center about the possibility of sealing his criminal record under the District's 2006 Expungement and Sealing law, but he was unable to seal any part of his record because the law in DC is so narrowly drafted.

"Things are beginning to happen. I'm trying to obtain my certification as a drug addiction counselor, but I have to be employed before I can continue my education," said Mr. Moore, who is optimistic and still interviewing for jobs. "Within the next couple of months, I hope something concrete settles, part-time, full-time...It doesn't matter at this point."

The report offers several recommendations for combating employer abuses of background checks. In addition to calling for the aggressive enforcement of civil rights and consumer protections that apply to criminal background checks by both the private and public sector, NELP also recommends that employers take a more active role in raising the profile of this issue and promoting best practices with respect to fair employment, beginning with an accurate and appropriate use of criminal background checks.

"We want the employer to do the right thing in the first place. I'd love to see the employer community step up in this area. Our employer best practices guide is a good resource for that," said Michelle Natividad Rodriguez, NELP staff attorney and lead author of the new report.

"In the Bay Area, we have a hotline, and in some cases, we try to represent people who have been affected by this type of discrimination. But if an individual feels they've been affected by an automatic ban, they should reach out to their local EEOC office directly, or to a local nonprofit that can help him or her file a charge with the EEOC, try to have a conversation with the potential employer, or look at the consumer protection laws."

In the end, fair and transparent processes -- in both the public and private sector -- are what lead to the best pool of candidates for our nation's jobs. Unnecessarily excluding qualified candidates from work violates these individual's civil and human rights, and limits the capacity of our inclusive nation. We cannot thrive as a democracy or viable economy when so many -- now 65 million people -- "need not apply."


Sources: The Grio, Youtube

Ban The Box! Fighting Employment Discrimination Via Background Checks!

Background Checks in Hiring: Discrimination or Due Diligence?

Can Employers disqualify Job Applicants for having a Criminal past?

You’d think the answer might be a flat “yes,” but it turns out the answer may not be so clear cut, reports the Associated Press.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has been cracking down on efforts to disqualify potential hires with criminal records or bad credit history, arguing that the practice can be tantamount to discrimination, as such applicants are disproportionately black or Latino.

Companies have increasingly sought to weed out applicants with bankruptcies, court judgments or credit problems in recent years, as improved technology has made the task easier and easier.

“Our sense is that the problem is snowballing because of the technology allowing these checks to be done with a fair amount of ease,” said Carol Miaskoff, assistant legal counsel at the EEOC, in an interview with the AP.

But some employers say the information gleaned from such databases are critical to making hires that will help them maintain a safe work environment.

“Past indiscretions may be an indicator of future behavior, especially in the criminal context,” Chicago employment lawyer Pamela Devata told the AP.

A blanket refusal to hire someone with a criminal record could run afoul of federal employment law, though. According to the story:

If criminal histories are taken into account, the EEOC says employers must also consider the nature of the job, the seriousness of the offense and how long ago it occurred. For example, it may make sense to disqualify a bank employee with a past conviction for embezzlement, but not necessarily for a DUI.

The EEOC indicated its disapproval of such practices last fall, when it it filed a class-action discrimination lawsuit against Dallas-based Freeman Companies, an events planning firm. The EEOC alleged that Freeman Companies used credit history and criminal records to discriminate against against blacks, Hispanics and males. Freeman has denied the charges, according to the AP.





Criminal Background Checks Upend Job Search For Some Unemployed

First, the College sent a letter.

It welcomed Curtis Andrews, Ed.D, Ph.D, to its adjunct faculty. A few days later, the emails about faculty orientation sessions and department meetings started arriving in Andrews' email inbox. But when a college human resources officer called him three times to ask for details about his 2006 wire fraud conviction, Andrews started to suspect that the job was no longer his.

“He just said, 'We’ll be in touch,'” said Andrews. “By that point, I had filled out, I guess, 70, 80 applications. So, I knew all about the box I have to check saying I have been convicted of a crime and that the applications all say that having been convicted may not prevent you from being hired. But you do get the sense that they get one look at a conviction and they put you in the technological trash … This time, they apparently thought I was qualified, then changed their mind.”

About 65 million Americans -- that’s one in four adults -- have an arrest or conviction that can show up on a routine criminal background check. What’s found can effectively upend their search for work or put them out of a job amid one of the most difficult job markets in recent history, according to a new report released by the National Employment Law Project.

In fact, in the years since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, criminal background checks calibrated to detect everything from arrests on dismissed or expunged charges to misdemeanor and felony convictions have become an increasingly common part of the job application process. A 2010 survey of the Society for Human Resources Management's member firms found that more than 90 percent routinely probe job applicants' backgrounds. The trade group’s members are mostly large employers.

A booming private criminal background industry has made clients of all kinds of companies doing everything from cleaning offices and delivering pizzas to sorting and delivering retail merchandise, said Maurice Emsellem, a policy co-director for the National Employment Law Project and one of the researchers behind the NELP report.

The National Association of Professional Background Screeners, a North Carolina-based industry trade group, could not be reached for comment.

“The industry of private screening firms, they make a big buck off of these practices,” Emsellem said. “They’ve got better and better at identifying and isolating employers who don’t use criminal background checks. The marketing pitch goes something like this: 'All your competitors are doing criminal background checks. Do you want to take the alleged risk?'”

What’s never mentioned is the growing body of evidence suggesting that after as few as three years –- depending on the person’s age and original crime -- people released from prison are no more likely than the general population to commit more crime, Emsellem said. But failing to find legitimate work is a major predictor of a return to jail, according to the NELP report.

That’s part of the reason why nonprofit agencies and even some corrections departments throughout the country are working to help ex-offenders find jobs.

"I think we’ve finally reached the point where people are starting to realize that if we have 3 percent of the world’s population but 20 percent of its prisoners, disqualifying that many people from work once they get out just isn’t sustainable," said Todd Berger, the managing attorney with the Rutgers School of Law-Camden’s Federal Prisoner Reentry Project. Berger oversees a law school clinic in which students seek to resolve some of the issues preventing federal parolees in the area from obtaining work.

In Maryland, Catholic Charities of Baltimore established the Our Daily Bread Employment Center four years ago. The center helps people with criminal backgrounds and limited job skills find work. The program reports serving more than 3,000 people in fiscal 2010. Since July, Our Daily Bread has helped place in jobs 296 of the 540 people who committed to the most intensive part of its program, according to Karen Heyward-West, a program manager for employment services.

Our Daily Bread informs employers about tax credits available to companies that hire ex-offenders, but Heyward-West said one of the program’s most effective tools is the mock interview. About 80 percent of the companies that send volunteer representatives to conduct mock interviews wind up offering to hire the center's clients, putting in a good word at their company for the program or referring clients to job opportunities elsewhere, she said.

“I am just going to be really honest -- there is a fear,” Heyward-West said. “There are people, employers who think we don’t want to hire those people, people with (criminal) backgrounds, people who were previously homeless. That’s a big part of what we have to overcome.”

In 1987, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the nation’s workplace discrimination watchdog agency, issued a statement that declared employer policies that disqualify any job candidates with a criminal record likely illegal. Employers are supposed to consider the age and nature of a conviction and its relevance to the job. Because a disproportionate share of African American and Latino adults have criminal records, blanket policies can effectively discriminate against groups protected by U.S. civil rights law, the commission said.

Still, the National Employment Law Project report found ample evidence of job ads that overtly exclude anyone with a criminal conviction. In a review of ads posted on Craigslist during a four-month period in five major cities, researchers found more than 300 ads in which employers stated that applicants with criminal records would not be considered. One ad for a sewer cleaning technician read, “***Do not apply with any misdemeanors/felonies.***”

“This is a major civil rights issue and a violation of the law,” NELP's Emsellem said.

There are entire industries where people with any type of criminal history –- no matter how minor or old –- will have difficulty finding work. After 9/11, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security began requiring truck drivers to undergo background checks in order to pick up or drop off loads at certain locations, such as ports. Truck drivers with a criminal record can request a waiver, but if the waiver is declined, a driver’s ability to work just about anywhere on the east or west coast is virtually destroyed, Berger of the Rutgers-Camden law clinic said. At least three or four times per semester, Berger said, his clinic hears from a truck driver who is having problems getting the necessary clearance to work at a port.

The situation defies reason, Berger said.

“You can understand how someone with an embezzlement conviction should not work in a bank or why someone with a child pornography charge should not work with kids," he said. "But you cannot understand how a drug conviction should disqualify someone from driving a truck or working as a janitor for the rest of their lives.”

A series of lawsuits filed last year against staffing companies and corporations has highlighted just how common blanket bans on hiring applicants with criminal records have become. A 2010 suit filed against First Transit, Inc. alleges that the busing company won’t hire anyone who has been convicted of a felony or served a single day in jail.

The practice isn’t limited to private employers. A class action lawsuit filed last year claims that the U.S. Census Bureau has refused to even consider applicants with criminal records for temporary Census jobs.

“Another part of the problem is the total lack of regulation on background check providers and the extremely high number of errors that pop up in their reports,” said Elizabeth Farid, deputy director of the National HIRE Network. HIRE is a New York-based nonprofit founded by the Legal Action Center, an advocacy group that opposes hiring discrimination against those with criminal records, HIV/AIDS or a history of addiction.

HIRE distributes information and advocates for policies that may expand job opportunities for people with criminal records. It also runs The Rap Sheet Workshop, in which job seekers with a criminal record are taught how to discuss their past in a frank but productive way. Participants are also shown how to identify duplications and errors and find help getting their records corrected.

Some cities, including Chicago, and states such as Michigan have implemented policies that require public agencies or private employers to stop automatically screening anyone with a criminal record out of the applicant pool.

But, there are also places like New Jersey.

Andrews called the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General after the community college backed away from his job offer. Andrews said office staff told him that they were no longer taking on criminal background check-related civil rights cases.

In an email, the New Jersey attorney general's office declined to comment on Andrew's case or its plans to pursue cases involving employers and criminal background checks.

“If I had a hard time, I don’t know what the hell some of the people who are being released form jail are supposed to do,” said Andrews, who has found an adjunct slot teaching liberal arts courses at another New Jersey community college. “People have to be able to work.”





Killing puts background checks in spotlight

The killing of a south Charlotte store manager - allegedly by a felon hired to work there - highlights the risks companies take when they hire an employee with a criminal record, or don't do a full background check on applicants.

The Flying Biscuit Cafe in StoneCrest shopping center faces possible fines or other penalties from the Alcohol Law Enforcement division for hiring Mark Anthony Cox, 22.

Background checks are only legally required in certain fields, such as child care and for people who work with the elderly, but the Flying Biscuit could be penalized because businesses aren't allowed to hire Felons convicted in the last three years for jobs that involve serving alcohol.

Cox is accused of stabbing 25-year-old Danielle Watson to death and robbing the store the night of Jan. 13. Prosecutors also have said they plan to charge Cox with a second count of murder in connection with Watson's unborn child.

He was released from prison in November, state records show, after serving nearly two years for robbery and breaking and entering.

A state Department of Crime Control and Public Safety spokeswoman said the Flying Biscuit's owner told ALE agents that a background check wasn't performed on Cox. The owner did tell WBTV that Cox had acknowledged a conviction during his interview. It's not clear if the owner knew the nature of the conviction.

Attempts to reach Flying Biscuit owner Hugh Bigham were unsuccessful Friday.

"A lot of small employers just don't think about background checks, or say they don't have the money," said Kenny Colbert, president of the Charlotte-based human resources group The Employers Association. He said the cost of a full screening is usually about $50, although there are North Carolina-only screens that go for as little as $10.

In the Charlotte region, Colbert said, 90 percent of companies with 500 or more employees do pre-hiring background checks, based on a survey of The Employer Association's nearly 900 member businesses. In contrast, only about 20 percent of firms with 20 or fewer employees said they do background checks.

Companies that don't conduct background checks on employees could be exposing themselves to legal liability, Colbert said. Employers lose more than 70 percent of negligent hiring lawsuits, according to statistics from background check company American DataBank.

Employers spend roughly $2 billion a year checking out employees, according to published reports. A wealth of material also is available free online, such as N.C. Department of Correction records, which detail Cox's prior conviction.

Timothy Keister, general partner at Charlotte-based background check company Total Screening Solutions, said business has been steady through the recession and recovery. He said his company does background checks and drug tests on behalf of large employers, but also for smaller employers.

"In this bad instance we have here, more than likely we would have pulled it up," said Keister, talking about Cox's past conviction.

He said his role isn't to tell employers whether to hire someone, but to enable them to decide based on the facts.

Advocates for those with criminal records point out that nearly everyone who is sentenced to prison will be released at some point, and they are less likely to be involved with further crimes if they can find legitimate work.

Employers shouldn't assume that someone with a criminal record will cause harm in the workplace, said Myra Clark, executive director of the Charlotte-based Center for Community Transitions, which provides employment and transition services to people with criminal records.

"There are a lot of people who have an encounter with the criminal justice system, and that's the only encounter they're ever going to have," she said. "There are people who make a conscious decision to change their lives."

Often, a search of someone's criminal record will show arrests for charges that may later have been dismissed. That might make it difficult for employers to determine which charges they should pay attention to, Clark said. Last year, background check company HireRight agreed to pay $28.4 million to settle claims related to not notifying people their background was being checked, and not responding to complaints of inaccurate information.

Outside of industries that are legally required to conduct background checks, there's little in the way of universal standards when it comes to employer liability, said Bernard Tisdale, managing partner for the Charlotte office of labor law firm Ogletree Deakins.

"It's all a matter of degree," said Tisdale. "It's all gray. Not everybody has got a duty to do a background check."

Aside from extreme cases - "bringing on the convicted ax murderer with ongoing psychological problems," as Tisdale put it - employer liability can vary greatly. It depends, for instance, on the type of business, and whether the employer kept the employee on despite warning signs.

Tisdale also said employers could put themselves at risk of legal action if a background check prompts them to improperly reject an applicant.

Colbert tells employers to examine how relevant and recent a prospect's criminal record is.

Background checks have figured in several high-profile N.C. cases. The estates of two women who were beaten to death at Galloway Ridge retirement home near Chapel Hill sued the facility in 2010. They claimed the facility should have done a background check on the cleaning woman convicted in their killings. The case is still in court.

But employers can be faulted even if they performed background checks, especially if those checks miss something.

The city of Charlotte has paid more than $617,000 to defend and settle lawsuits stemming from former Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Officer Marcus Jackson. He was arrested and charged with sexually assaulting women during improper traffic stops. CMPD admitted that a pre-employment screening didn't turn up a domestic violence restraining order filed by Jackson's girlfriend, which should have disqualified him.

And Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools is being sued by a former South Mecklenburg High School student who claims she was sexually victimized by a band director. A proper background check, the lawsuit alleges, would have found a history of inappropriate behavior with students at previous schools. CMS said it conducted a thorough background check.


View Larger Map

Sources: AOL, HuffPost, The Grio, Wall Street Journal, WCNC, Youtube, Google Maps

North Carolina Pushes Background Checks Again: Due Diligence, Safety Or Discrimination?

Killing puts background checks in spotlight

The killing of a south Charlotte store manager - allegedly by a felon hired to work there - highlights the risks companies take when they hire an employee with a criminal record, or don't do a full background check on applicants.

The Flying Biscuit Cafe in StoneCrest shopping center faces possible fines or other penalties from the Alcohol Law Enforcement division for hiring Mark Anthony Cox, 22.

Background checks are only legally required in certain fields, such as child care and for people who work with the elderly, but the Flying Biscuit could be penalized because businesses aren't allowed to hire Felons convicted in the last three years for jobs that involve serving alcohol.

Cox is accused of stabbing 25-year-old Danielle Watson to death and robbing the store the night of Jan. 13. Prosecutors also have said they plan to charge Cox with a second count of murder in connection with Watson's unborn child.

He was released from prison in November, state records show, after serving nearly two years for robbery and breaking and entering.

A state Department of Crime Control and Public Safety spokeswoman said the Flying Biscuit's owner told ALE agents that a background check wasn't performed on Cox. The owner did tell WBTV that Cox had acknowledged a conviction during his interview. It's not clear if the owner knew the nature of the conviction.

Attempts to reach Flying Biscuit owner Hugh Bigham were unsuccessful Friday.

"A lot of small employers just don't think about background checks, or say they don't have the money," said Kenny Colbert, president of the Charlotte-based human resources group The Employers Association. He said the cost of a full screening is usually about $50, although there are North Carolina-only screens that go for as little as $10.

In the Charlotte region, Colbert said, 90 percent of companies with 500 or more employees do pre-hiring background checks, based on a survey of The Employer Association's nearly 900 member businesses. In contrast, only about 20 percent of firms with 20 or fewer employees said they do background checks.

Companies that don't conduct background checks on employees could be exposing themselves to legal liability, Colbert said. Employers lose more than 70 percent of negligent hiring lawsuits, according to statistics from background check company American DataBank.

Employers spend roughly $2 billion a year checking out employees, according to published reports. A wealth of material also is available free online, such as N.C. Department of Correction records, which detail Cox's prior conviction.

Timothy Keister, general partner at Charlotte-based background check company Total Screening Solutions, said business has been steady through the recession and recovery. He said his company does background checks and drug tests on behalf of large employers, but also for smaller employers.

"In this bad instance we have here, more than likely we would have pulled it up," said Keister, talking about Cox's past conviction.

He said his role isn't to tell employers whether to hire someone, but to enable them to decide based on the facts.

Advocates for those with criminal records point out that nearly everyone who is sentenced to prison will be released at some point, and they are less likely to be involved with further crimes if they can find legitimate work.

Employers shouldn't assume that someone with a criminal record will cause harm in the workplace, said Myra Clark, executive director of the Charlotte-based Center for Community Transitions, which provides employment and transition services to people with criminal records.

"There are a lot of people who have an encounter with the criminal justice system, and that's the only encounter they're ever going to have," she said. "There are people who make a conscious decision to change their lives."

Often, a search of someone's criminal record will show arrests for charges that may later have been dismissed. That might make it difficult for employers to determine which charges they should pay attention to, Clark said. Last year, background check company HireRight agreed to pay $28.4 million to settle claims related to not notifying people their background was being checked, and not responding to complaints of inaccurate information.

Outside of industries that are legally required to conduct background checks, there's little in the way of universal standards when it comes to employer liability, said Bernard Tisdale, managing partner for the Charlotte office of labor law firm Ogletree Deakins.

"It's all a matter of degree," said Tisdale. "It's all gray. Not everybody has got a duty to do a background check."

Aside from extreme cases - "bringing on the convicted ax murderer with ongoing psychological problems," as Tisdale put it - employer liability can vary greatly. It depends, for instance, on the type of business, and whether the employer kept the employee on despite warning signs.

Tisdale also said employers could put themselves at risk of legal action if a background check prompts them to improperly reject an applicant.

Colbert tells employers to examine how relevant and recent a prospect's criminal record is.

Background checks have figured in several high-profile N.C. cases. The estates of two women who were beaten to death at Galloway Ridge retirement home near Chapel Hill sued the facility in 2010. They claimed the facility should have done a background check on the cleaning woman convicted in their killings. The case is still in court.

But employers can be faulted even if they performed background checks, especially if those checks miss something.

The city of Charlotte has paid more than $617,000 to defend and settle lawsuits stemming from former Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Officer Marcus Jackson. He was arrested and charged with sexually assaulting women during improper traffic stops. CMPD admitted that a pre-employment screening didn't turn up a domestic violence restraining order filed by Jackson's girlfriend, which should have disqualified him.

And Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools is being sued by a former South Mecklenburg High School student who claims she was sexually victimized by a band director. A proper background check, the lawsuit alleges, would have found a history of inappropriate behavior with students at previous schools. CMS said it conducted a thorough background check.


View Larger Map

Sources: McClatchy Newspapers, WBTV, WCNC, Youtube, Google Maps

Herman Cain Implies Endorsing Anti-Muslim Discrimination

Its Official Folks!

And Its Obvious Herman Cain (Black 2012 GOP Presidential Candidate) Is A Paid Sell-Out, Probably Despises His Black Ancestry, Probably Hates Muslims & Is Desperately Attempting To Divide The American Black Community!

Cain Recently Stated To The National Media: "I Never Said I Would Discriminate Against Muslims Or Any Other Religion For That Matter, But I Am Going To Take Extra Precautions If A Muslim Person Who Is Competent Wants To Work In My Administration."

Wait A Minute!

Doesn't Cain's Anti-Muslim Comments Sound Like Some Of Sarah "Barracuda" Palin's Ignorant REHEARSED Tea Party Political Talking Points?

Excuse Me!

But Isn't Cain's Ideology On NOT Refusing To Hire Muslims Solely Based Upon Their Religious Beliefs, A Clear Form Of Title VII Discrimination?

FYI: From The EEOC:

Private Employment, State and Local Governments, Educational Institutions
Applicants to and employees of most private employers, state and local governments, educational institutions, employment agencies and labor organizations are protected under the following Federal laws:

RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, NATIONAL ORIGIN
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, prohibits discrimination in hiring, promotion, discharge, pay, fringe benefits, job training, classification, referral, and other aspects of employment, on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.


Excuse Me!

But Doesn't It Appear Stupid That A BLACK Man Living In A STILL Very Racist Country Would Make Such Comments?

Listen Just Because We Now Have A BLACK Man Leading Our Nation In The Oval Office Or Just Because Another BLACK Man (Herman Cain) Is Running For U.S. President On The Republican/ Tea Party Ticket, Doesn't Mean ALL Of The Color & Racial Barriers In This Country Have Been Completely Eliminated.

Its Also Obvious Cain Needs Much Prayer & NO Political Support.

Herman Cain Sir, Please Sit Down & STOP Making A Fool Of Yourself!

Your 15-Minutes Of Fame Are Over! Like Yesterday!

VOTE OBAMA IN 2012!!!!!!







Herman Cain: Muslims have no place in US government


So we’ve got two probable candidates for the GOP presidential nominees who claim Georgia as their base. One is Newt Gingrich.

This is the other one.

For those who can’t view the video, Herman Cain is asked whether he would be willing to appoint a Muslim as a Cabinet officer or judge.

“No. I will not,” he said. “And here’s why: There’s this creeping attempt — there’s this attempt to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government.” According to Cain, many American Muslims “are trying to force their Sharia law onto the rest of us.”

That’s just stupid. As in not very bright. By comparison, the Sharia conspiracy crowd makes the birthers look downright sane and reasonable. It will be interesting to see who, if anyone, among the GOP mainstream steps up to repudiate such nonsense. After all, the Constitution explicitly rules out such nonsense, stating point blank that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

I guess Herman Cain doesn’t believe in the Constitution.

Oh, and by the way?

In a speech to Texas evangelicals, Gingrich also took up the theme over the weekend, warning that unless America is saved, his grandchildren “will live in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American.”

“a secular atheist country … dominated by radical Islamists?” Wow. That would be some trick.

It’s the kind of rhetorical collision that happens when you’re merely listing scare words needed to scare your audience and not even attempting to communicate cogent thought.


View Larger Map


Sources: AJC, AOL, AP, Fox News, Huffington Post, MSNBC, Think Progress, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google Maps