Thanks for sharing this information. I will share about Africa Blog ” Blog Archive ” Putting Africa on trial? | Blogs | with my readers….

Mr. Douglas El (the appellant in this case) claimed that he was wrongfully discriminated against on the basis of race. Title VII of the 1964 Act specifically prohibits this type of discrimination. Mr. El had been conditionally hired by King Paratransit Services, Inc. (a SEPTA sub-contractor) to drive paratransit services for the mentally/physically disabled. King provided door-to-door and curb-to-curb transportation for some of the most vulnerable members of society.

Curiously, Mr. El’s conditional employment (which was subject to a clean background check) was terminated not because of his ethnicity, but rather because he had been previously convicted of 2nd degree murder. A fact that Mr. El does not deny.

In his appeal, Mr. El alleges that African Americans and Hispanics are more likely to have a criminal record and thus (again this is Mr. El’s view) are disproportionately affected by an employment policy barring convicted felons and in this case murderers.

When Mr. El went to the EEOC for assistance, he found a friendly ear (no great surprise there). When the EEOC was unable to prevail upon SEPTA to change their policy (and kudos to the good folks at SEPTA for standing up to the EEOC) both Mr. El and the EEOC attempted to have the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice to engage on their behalf. The CRD took one look at their case and told them to pound sand.

Mr. El, on his own this time, brought the case to Federal District Court. The district court looked at the case from several different perspectives. SEPTA moved for a summary judgement and prevailed on not one but two grounds for the motion:
– SEPTA had submitted sufficient evidence to prove that its policy was justified by business necessity (SEPTA has a legitimate need to ensure the safety of the mentally/physically disabled passengers of whom Mr. El was to have been transport driver)
– El failed to provide evidence sufficient to prove that an alternative employment policy would accomplish SEPTA’s legitimate goal of public safety

Mr. El’s case never went to trial (summary judgement is pre-trial) in the district court. Undeterred, Mr. El (with support from the NAACP as amicus) appealed. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s summary judgment on both grounds.

What does this mean? It means that companies who have a legitimate interest in protecting their customers, their employees, or others are not compelled to hire convicted murderers regardless of the murderer’s ethnicity.

It is unfortunate that Mr. El has, and will continue to have, difficulty in finding gainful employment. What is even more unfortunate is that the young man (16 years old) that Mr. El murdered will never have the opportunity to finish high school, attend college, or find gainful employment.

Mr. El circumstances are the natural consequence of the choices he made and the actions he took as a gang-member. He has no one else (and nothing else) to blame.

To suggest otherwise is deceitful and dishonest.

Those are the facts as I see them. Share your thoughts!