The Full Employment for Lawyers Act
By Norman Leahy | Friday, September 23rd, 2011 | Policy, Politics
On CNBC this morning, former General Electric CEO Jack Welch mentioned a curious section of the President’s proposed, “must pass” jobs bill that would penalize businesses for not hiring the unemployed. Digging through the bill, we come to Section 371, the “Fair Employment Opportunity Act of 2011”. Under this section, employers who make explicit mention that they won’t hire the unemployed can be charged with civil rights violations, and if found guilty, be held responsible for attorney’s fees and fined up to $1,000 “for each day of the violation.”
This lengthy section seeks to prevent the reappearance of Depression era images like the one nearby. Perhaps that’s a good thing. And there is the requisite throat clearing in the section saying that employment history, and job qualifications, can still be used in hiring decisions.
But for an enterprising lawyer, Section 371 could represent a golden opportunity to sue businesses anyway for not hiring the unemployed…all under the cover of a civil rights violation.
Maybe the section should have been entitled “The Full Employment for Attorneys Act of 2011.”
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Norm Leahy has written about Virginia and national politics online since 2002, beginning with One Man's Trash (OMT), and continuing through Bacon's Rebellion (both the blog and the e-zine), Sic Semper Tyrannis, NBC12's Decision Virginia, Richmond.com and Tertium Quids. He is the chief blogger at "The Score" and a producer of "The Score" radio show as well as being a Washington Examiner contributor.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
10 Responses to "The Full Employment for Lawyers Act"
Instead of creating an environment that fosters economic growth and job hiring the Dems sue private companies that attempt to hire Anyone. Obama is a warrior looking for (not Out For) the middle class. Priceless.
Lest anyone think otherwise the next step will be the government telling each business how many employees they must hire and maintain and what they will be paid.
Good catch, Norm. The public is lucky to have bloggers like you around to offer the critical coverage of the Obama administration that the establishment media refuses to provide.
Good catch, Norm. The public is lucky to have bloggers like you around to offer the critical coverage of the Obama administration that the establishment media refuse to provide.
It is sad that the Obama Administration and the Democrats would resort to such heavy-handed tactics, esp. since you would think that they would have become more corporate-friendly as the majority owners of Government Motors. But this is understandable. It has been an open secret for over a year now that companies don’t want to hire those who have been chronically unemployed/underemployed since the recession, esp. at the salaried employee level. First, the presumption is that, since companies triage their workforce by productivity and performance during a lay-off, those who have been unemployed longest were the least productive in their last job. Second, in too many industries currency in the emerging technology and trends is an absolute job requirement. Those who have been unemployed for a year or longer may simply just not be current and employers don’t want to pay them to get back up to speed.
This is unfortunate, but it is a reality of the job market and while it might not be fair, it hardly rises to the level of a civil rights discrimination case. Handing the tort lawyers a piece of law like this, regardless of the qualifiers, is like handing a kid a loaded shotgun and telling him not to hurt anyone. Just another example of how the Democrats just don’t “get it” when it comes to business and the free market economy.
Now, I suspect, we will hear a rebuttal from Mike and Jamie.
Seems to me that this provision could be unconstitutional as an infringement on these businesses’ First Amendment rights. The provision does not prohibit companies from actually discriminating against the unemployed. In fact, according to Norm’s post, it expressly protects the right of businesses to so discriminate. What the provision specifically prohibits is businesses SAYING that they do so. This is an infringement on their right to free speech.
Ken,
That is probably true, until the first lawyer gets involved. Title VII, as originally intended, required employers to affirm that they don’t discriminate in hiring on the basis of race, sex, age, etc. Now, after a few years of tort litigation, that has been twisted to the point where HR gives managers a list of forbidden questions that you cannot ask in an interview, such as marital status, age, or religious upbringing, despite the fact that the job applicant has already been given a copy of the company’s non-discrimination policy by HR and signed a copy acknowledging receiving it. For example, if the applicant is wearing a Star of David piece of jewelry and the job requires frequent weekend travel, you can’t ask if the applicant is an observant Jew who cannot travel from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. That would be discrimination based on religion. If this section passes into law, I predict that any questions concerning the applicant’s employment gaps on his resume will become off-limits.
That is why I liked Norm’s characterization of the section as a Full Employment Act for lawyers.
Ken,
With all due respect the result you expect would be almost entirely dependent on whether Clinton or Obama appointed the judge. Leftist judges do not judge the law; they judge the outcome (and whether the DNC would approve). Take a look at the history of employment tests. No matter how much the scientific validity of a particular test was demonstrated, judges routinely threw them out because the “result” was not what they wanted. The net result was that businesses stopped using them.
Conservatives need to stop thinking that who runs the courts the schools and the media can be ignored because the Constitution or law says something or because the electorate will wake up to the Truth when the RNC explains the situation.
The burden of proof is again shifted to the accused in the rape: “employment history, and job qualifications, can still be used in hiring decisions.” I accuse you of doing it, and you have to prove you didn’t, instead of me having to prove that you did. I wonder if a formerly unemployed applicant will be able to allege civil rights discrimination when they are applying for a municipal, state for Federal Government job? This is also raw meat for the unions when they start negotiating their contracts.
This increases employment for not only Plaintiff’s lawyers but also those lawyers defending business that violate the provisions. Interesting Constitutional questions will be raised providing intellectual fodder for some attorneys.
Non legal businesses will not hire more people because of these provisions. Nonetheless I look forward to the potential deluge of attorneys’ fees coming to me and my ilk.
Most bills these days are lawyer employment acts… legislation is hidden from debate in Congress and the public, vaguely worded and thousands of pages long. Perfect political economics for lawyers to thrive in. Lots of billable hours when there is no plain meaning or brevity in the law. Funny how that works out….
Leave your response