Woman sues university after job offer is revoked over blemishes on credit check

[ck4829]

Loudy Appolon was supposed to start her new job at the University of Miami's medical school on a Monday. But the Friday before, she was told not to bother showing up.

A car repossession and defaulted student loan that showed up on her credit report disqualified her from the job, she was told.

Now Appolon is suing the university in federal court and seeking class-action status for the case, hoping to trigger a change that could ban employers from using credit histories in hiring decisions.

Appolon's suit, filed in November, comes as the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has started looking into whether the use of credit checks in hiring is a violation of federal civil rights laws.

With an offer in hand, Appolon quit her old job in anticipation of the new one. She had been through several interviews and had the right experience for a job as a senior medical collector in the patient financial services department because she had been doing similar work at North Shore Medical Center for several years.

She said UM would not reconsider its 2009 decision even after she had fixed the blemishes in her credit history. She spent four months without a job as a result.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/12/06/1960961/credit-woes-put-a-crunch-on-jobs.html

I got an idea; why don't we just take people who are unable to pay their bills, and make them wear a big scarlet "C" on their clothing that will mean they should be punished for the rest of their lives and will make it all the harder for them to get a job, which will make it harder to pay for bills they want to pay off and new bills as well. That should do wonders for them and the economy as a whole, right? Right?

[treestar]

1. I don't see why employers think this is so important

If anything, you'd be motivated to show up at work.

But then this is for a collections position. In that instance, maybe they think she'll be too merciful!

[Blue_Tires]

5. they just look for excuses to not hire people sometimes...

and have the rest of the jobseekers fighting for crumbs...

[intheflow]

9. I was once told the thought behind this is

if you're having money problems, you'd be more likely to steal from the company. Of course this is utter bullshit since one need look no further than Bernie Madoff or Ken Lay to see that people with money are just as likely to steal from a company than poor people. And either way, it's still not all that common. So the whole reasoning is BS, just a way for companies to think the herd of applicants, really.

[LisaL]

13. If the University doesn't want to hire people with problematic

credit, why not do credit checks before making offers? She says she quit her old job because she got this offer.

[Statistical]

14. That is a good point but we only have one side of the story.

I have had numerous "tentative job offers" where I was granted a job pending verification of:
* security clearance
* degrees / certification
* verifying previous employment
* conduct drug screen
* conduct background check
* conduct credit check.

I routinely ask employers not to verify my employment, contact references, or speak to my superior until after a conditional offer has been extended.

[LisaL]

17. I agree.

If the offer was tentative pending credit check, then I'd say she shouldn't have quit her old job.
I wonder if it was an oral offer or did she get it in writing?

[Statistical]

18. Yeah lot of unanswered questions. Depending on the circumstances and the state

she may have a very good case or not chance in hell.

[Botany]

2. It is a never ending cycle lose a job or become under employed and then ...

.... your credit gets burned out and when you go and look for a new job they look @ your
bad credit stops you from getting a job.

But in other news corporations are now sitting on a mountains of cash and not hiring
anybody because they are worried about the economy.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

3. K & R

[La Lioness Priyanka]

4. i am surprised that no one has tried to prove adverse affect with credit card rating selections

since i am sure its not job relevant info

[happyslug]

11. When the ADA passed, everyone expected it to help employment

But the cases was NOT people suing employers for NOT hiring them (Such people did not know why they were not hired or found other employment) but people who lost their job do to discrimination against the Handicap. In such cases the employee had a reason to sue the employer, the employee lost income do to being terminated.

The same thing with Credit Reports, most people never know that it was a factor in the decision NOT to hire them, and most such employees find other compatible employment (and thus do not sue), it takes someone like this employee who had a job (or in this case a job offer) and then let go. Then and only then do you have someone with an economic reason to sue the employer (i.e. the loss of the job). Thus people being denied employment do to Credit Reports are rare, reports of people being fired for bad credit report, I suspect, is much higher.

[aikoaiko]

23. I think I remember reading that jobs involving money or finances could use credit checks.

[DainBramaged]

6. In the car business they sadly refer to them as credit criminals

because most people in the car business have perfect credit........(rimshot).

[BuelahWitch]

7. I can see why a defaulted student loan *might* keep you

from getting a job at a University, but they should never have offered her a position in the first place. How long does it take for a credit check? It could have been done while she was jumping through all the other hoops. Sounds fishy to me.

[LisaL]

15. However long it takes, if the University checked her credit

before making her any offers, she'd never even know why she didn't get the job.
But at least she wouldn't have quit her old one.

[FirstLight]

8. good for her!

This is discrimination, case & point.

The corporatocracy wants to control us, if you make a bad decision, have a divorce that causes financial issues, etc, you deserve to be a lower class citizen.

I have called this bullshit as long as it has been in practise. In classes for HR mgmt last year, when i asked how this is NOT an invasion of privacy, i was told by the corporatists.."don't apply to those jobs if you know you can't pass the tests"

i call bullshit and i hope this woman turns the tide for the rest of us!!!! I want to send her a letter of support!

[happyslug]

10. The problem is, as a general rule, bad credit is NOT a protected class, and as such legal

It is perfectly legal to discriminate based on Credit Reports as long as it is NOT a substitute for discrimination against a Protected class of people. What I mean by "Substitute" is when a non illegal discrimination method is adopted, but it is used to discriminate against someone in a Protected class. The Classic case was in the late 1960s when the Courts held it was discrimination to refuse to hire non-high school graduates, when almost all the people in the area of the business where either whites with High School Diplomas or African-Americans without such diplomas AND the job had nothing to do with education level. The Court found that the requirement for a high School Diploma was a way to hire only whites. That was discrimination against African-Americans and ruled to be illegal under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

On the other hand, the courts are less likely to make the finding today (in fact there is subsequent case with the same employer where the court did make such a ruling, ruling that the high School Diploma was a valid job requirement).

Thus I do NOT see her winning her claim as a Civil Rights Violation. Having a bad credit rating is NOT evidence of being in a "Protected Class" (Which under Federal Law, forbids discrimination based on race, sex, color, national origin, age, family status (if you have children), Disability, or religion (I am going by memory, the exact list is on the net). Thus I do NOT expect her to prevail on the Civil Rights Claim

Civil Rights Act of 1964:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968

On the other hand, she had been given a firm job offer and had quit her job knowing she had a new job. The job offer was withdrawn AFTER she had accepted it. She also undertook expenses tied in with accepting the job that was later withdrawn.

The employer is going to claim the "At Will" Doctrine ,i.e. an employer and an employer can end any employment contract at any time for any reason (Except an illegal reason, see the Civil Rights law above and other laws). The plaintiff can said, yes, that is true BUT SHE INCURRED COSTS WHEN SHE ACCEPTED THE JOB, COST THE EMPLOYER KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN SHE WOULD HAVE INCURRED. Her claim is thus Contractual not Civil Rights. On this claim, she has a strong case, an employment contract had been entered into and then breeched by the Employer AND do to that Breech she incurred losses. She had a duty to minimize her loss (She found employment after four months on unemployment) but that still leaves the four months she was without a job AND the difference in salary between the job offered and then withdrawn and her new job.

Interesting case, I would have added the Civil Rights Angle to the Contractual dispute, but I would concentrate on the Contractual dispute, using the Civil Right Case to show WHY the breech occurred. It would be good if the Civil Rights Act would be extended to include credit histories, but as a general rule such an expansion of the people in "Protected Classes" is left to the Federal Congress, State Legislatures or local Governments. On the other hand we have a clear breech of a contract, the employer withdrew an offer of employment based on a credit report AFTER the offer had been made and accepted. The only restriction on such a claim is the "At Will" Doctrine AND the non-breeching sides duty to minimize her loss.

As to the "At Will" Doctrine, the issue is not that the employer hired her and then fired her, but made and offer and withdrew it AFTER she had accepted it, quit her previous job and incurred other expenses. She did NOT incur those expense just to get unemployment but to hold the job AND it was cost she incurred do to the withdraw of the employment offer AFTER she had accepted it. The Employer will have to pay something, the only issue is how much.

[LisaL]

12. If her creidt was an obstacle to her getting the job,

shouldn't they have checked her credit before making her an offer? She says she quit her old job when she got an offer for a new one.

[Statistical]

16. They should and they may have.

It is possible they offered her a tentative position pending verification. We only have one side of the story.

Still sadly even if they did offer her a position (and didn't make it clear it was tentative ) in many states she still has no case.

In so called "right to work" states employers can terminate employees for any non-protected reason at any time, and with any amount of notice.

[happyslug]

19. And that is one of her claims for compensation

Now, had the employer NEVER made the offer (i.e. did the Credit Check BEFORE the employer made the offer), then the employee would have no case. No Contract was ever entered into for no offer was made for her to accept.

The Employer's problem was they did MADE AN OFFER AND THE EMPLOYEE ACCEPTED IT. Then and only then did the Employer do a credit Check and used that check to withdraw the offer AFTER the offer had been accepted by the employee.

I agreed, the employer should have checked BEFORE the Employer made the Job offer, but that is not what happened here. You can withdraw an offer before it is accepted, but once accepted you MUST fulfill what you promised to do under the terms of the Contract. That set of facts is what the Employee is standing on, and it is a willing hand, the only restriction is what was the length of time of employment that was accepted.

Please note, all of the above is based on the employee's story being the "facts" of the case as found by the fact-finder of the case (Judge or Jury). If the fact finder determines no offer was made, she loses, if the fact finder says she never accepted the offer, she losses. If the Fact finder says she suffered no "loss" (given she had unemployment for the months she did not work) she may win a nominal award of $1 Dollar in damages. A lot of ifs, but if overcome she can win her case, but she has to prove a lot of ifs.

[LisaL]

21. If they checked her credit and did not offer her a job because

of her credit, she'd never even know why she didn't get the job.

[happyslug]

24. Correct, common problem under the ADA act.

See above my comments on the American With Disabilities Act (ADA).

Through it is discrimination against handicap people not bad credit reports under the ADA.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

20. But then they would fuck up a working person's life much less than they could.

And we can't have that. It would make Nordic Baby Jesus cry.

[aikoaiko]

22. Most likely they offered the job pending good criminal and credit background checks.

That's how we do it.