In his angry ruling the Judge called the EEOC's allegations “laughable,” “distorted,” “cherry-picked,” “worthless” and “an egregious example of scientific dishonesty.”
The case surrounded the Dallas-based Freeman Decorating Services Inc., a family-owned company with 3,500 full-time and 25,000 part-time and seasonal workers that provides integrated services for expositions and other events, which was being sued by the EEOC based on its policy of performing Criminal background checks on potential employees. The EEOC did not challenge any of the company's specific criteria but the race-neutral background retarded minority hires.
In the [summary]ruling, Judge Titus harshly criticized the statistical evidence presented by the EEOC to support its charges, and said the agency had also failed to identify the specific policy or policies that caused the alleged impact.
“The EEOC attempts to make a statistically sufficient demonstration of disparate impact” through two experts' reports, says the ruling. However, focusing largely on a report by Kevin R. Murphy, the ruling says there is “such a plethora of errors and analytical fallacies underlying Murphy's conclusions to render them completely unreliable and insufficient to support a finding of disparate impact.”Anyone who has been following the policies/suits/speeches of this administration would be very surprised to hear the Judge thought the Obama EEOC to be disingenuous, distorted and downright laughable but it's true. Judge Titus also said.
....Mr. Murphy's database “represents only a distorted fraction of the time period relevant in this case” and that he “cherry-picked” data to support his conclusion of a disparate impact. A report by another expert is “likewise unreliable and inadmissible,” says the ruling.
“The story of the present action has been a theory in search of facts to support it,” concludes Judge Titus' ruling. “But there are simply no facts here to support a theory of disparate impact resulting from any identified, specific practice of the defendant.
“Indeed, any rational employer in the United States should pause to consider the implications of actions of this nature brought based upon such inadequate data. By bringing actions of this nature, the EEOC has placed many employers in the 'Hobson's choice' of ignoring criminal history and credit background, thus exposing themselves to potential liability for criminal and fraudulent acts committed by employees, on the one hand, or incurring the wrath of the EEOC for having utilized information deemed fundamental by most employers.
“Something more, far more, than what is relied upon by the EEOC in this case must be utilized to justify a disparate impact claim upon criminal history and credit checks. To require less, would be to condemn the use of common sense, and this is simply not what the discrimination laws of this country require,” says the ruling, in granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the case.Despite the public whipping look for this administration to cherry-pick and lie in another legal brief as the EEOC tries to appeal the Judge's ruling.