Federal judge calls administration’s claim ‘laughable,’ ‘distorted,’ ‘worthless’

Obama sad

In its never-ending quest to uncover racism where it doesn’t exist, the Obama administration’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a complaint against a company for conducting criminal and credit background checks of its job applicants — and got roundly criticized by the federal judge assigned to the case, who described the complaint as “laughable,” “distorted,” “worthless” and a “theory in search of facts.”

The EEOC filed its complaint against Freeman Exhibit Services, claiming that criminal and credit background checks to screen its job applicants disproportionately exclude minorities from being hired, according to Judicial Watch.

In a scathing 32-page memorandum opinion, Federal District Judge Roger Titus granted Freeman’s motion for a summary judgment and dismissed the EEOC’s complaint, finding its allegations “cherry-picked” and “worthless,” and calling the government’s expert witness’s findings “an egregious example of scientific dishonesty,” containing a “mind-boggling number of errors.” The court concluded, “There are simply no facts here to support a theory of disparate impact resulting from any identified, specific practice of the defendant.”

“Of interesting note is that the EEOC conducts criminal background checks as a condition of employment and credit background checks for most of its positions,” Judicial Watch reported. “For some reason, it’s not discriminatory against minorities when the agency does it. But it is when private businesses utilize the tool because information about prior convictions is being used to discriminate against a racial or ethnic group, according to the EEOC. ”

Bullying the engine of the economy — private enterprise — is nothing new for the Obama administration. Judicial Watch notes:

A few years ago the EEOC bullied a national healthcare firm into paying nearly half a million dollars to settle a discrimination lawsuit for requiring employees to speak English on the job, even though federal law allows employers to require it. The EEOC found that enforcing an English-only rule against Hispanics violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by committing national origin discrimination against the Spanish speakers. Years earlier, the EEOC sued the Christian charity Salvation Army for national origin discrimination because it required two Hispanic employees at its Massachusetts thrift store to speak English on the job.

Nor is the practice limited to the EEOC. The National Labor Relations Board and Environmental Protections Agency.

As thin-skinned as this administration has proven itself to be, one might assume that such an opinion would give the agency pause before it embarks on a similar witch hunt. Judicial Watch disagrees.

“That kind of whipping from a federal judge has got to hurt though it’s unlikely to deter the administration from spending more taxpayer dollars to file frivolous lawsuits against employers who use the checks to screen job applicants,” the organization said Wednesday.


Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!

Success! Thank you for donating. Please share BPR content to help combat the lies.


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

PLEASE JOIN OUR NEW COMMENT SYSTEM! We love hearing from our readers and invite you to join us for feedback and great conversation. If you've commented with us before, we'll need you to re-input your email address for this. The public will not see it and we do not share it.

Latest Articles