From David Hardy:
Obama Admin snubbing Civil Rights Act?
Their questionnaire for political appointees (for thousands of positions, BTW, not just cabinet posts) asks about arrests. “There are no time limits for some information, including liens, tax audits, lawsuits, legal charges, bankruptcies or arrests.” “Only the smallest details are excluded; traffic tickets carrying fines of less than $50 need not be reported, the application says.”
But the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission takes a very dim view of considering arrest records in hiring and firing. Arrest without conviction proves very little, and arrests disproportionately impact minorities. The commission’s advice to employers is that merely asking for arrest records may be violation: “Even where there is no direct evidence that an employer used an arrest record in an employment decision, a pre-employment inquiry regarding arrest records may violate Title VII. It is generally presumed that an employer only asks questions which he/she deems relevant to the employment decision.”
And in comments there from 30 YEAR PROF: “No ‘civil right act’ applies to either the Congress or the White House. De’ all be exempt.”
And why is that? It seems Mr. Billy Jeff Clinton’s roosters are coming home to roost. I was able to find this NewsMax article from 1994:
That talks about Billy Jeff’s administration firing a White House chef named Haddon, and Haddon then suing under the civil rights act, claiming racial discrimination. From the article:
The Justice Department filed a motion to dismiss Haddon’s EEO suit on the grounds that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, sex and religion, does not apply to White House employees…In a September 1993 ruling on the Haddon case, federal District Court Judge Stanley Sporkin agreed with the Justice Department that the White House is exempt from EEO law.
And this 2000 article about another chef in the White House (what is it with the white house and chefs?) naming Clinton in a sexual harassment lawsuit (surprise, surprise) saying:
Mr. Clinton is named in the complaint because the head of a federal agency, in this case the White House, is typically named in civil rights suits brought against the agency. The complaint says that he failed to establish a method for White House employees to report civil rights violations, as required by a 1997 law.
I also found this Time article from 1988:
Which talks about the hypocritical congress (redundancy alert) exempting themselves from laws they expect the rest of us to follow.
So, I haven’t been able to turn up proof that the White House is legally exempt from the EEOC, but we can certainly see that some government employees, up to and including the president, certainly THINK they are exempt.
“Civil rights? Those only matter when mine are being violated!”