Wife Denied Employment due to the BK!! Opinions

[Dollar Bill]

So does anyone know if bk pops up in your background forever. I know it will last 7 to 10 years on a credit report.

[b_girl]

The problem with using BK and bad credit to deny employment is that it presupposes a character flaw which does not exist...it in essence brands the filer as a thief who cannot be trusted with other people's money because they 'stole' from their lenders. There is no way that this would stand in court, and only when enough people challenge this false assumption will it stop. I say get a lawyer and fight it.

[Tbornetun]

This has been common practice for many years, especially in the financial industry or jobs related to dealing with money. My husband has to keep a secret security clearance for the military. Credit is a big issue, people with financial problems are more prone to accept bribes, swindle, or embezzle money. They can come up with any other reason they want to not hire someone, they simply have to say they hired a more qualified candidate. My husband is also applying for a job with the Highway Patrol right now, huge background check, including credit. Trying to fight it, as some posters said, will not be worth it. What is there to fight? Fight to make a court force the employer to employ you?? Fight, as in create a law suit that will also come up on a background check, then future employers will see that you have sued an employer for discrimination. Most employers won't want the trouble of an employee that would go to those lengths.
It is about picking your battles.

[Argh!]

The problem with using BK and bad credit to deny employment is that it presupposes a character flaw which does not exist...it in essence brands the filer as a thief who cannot be trusted with other people's money because they 'stole' from their lenders. There is no way that this would stand in court, and only when enough people challenge this false assumption will it stop. I say get a lawyer and fight it.

Fastest way to a blacklist. This sucks, but I would walk away.

[krielly]

Often times when a door closes, a window opens....

Perhaps this job was not meant to be...for reasons unknown. Keep your chin up. Something better will come along for your wife in the future. I'm sure of it! I don't think I would want to go to work for someone who judged me as a "fraud" risk, just because I had financial difficulties.

Hang in there. Best of luck to your family!!!

K

[chloe0724]

I work for a large bank, and when I had to file chapter 13, my complaiance officer said that as long as it was a legit reason, ie not becasue i ran up a bunch of bogus debt and then bailed, I had nothing to worry about. He said there are many people in that situation today that are still working for the bank.

I also know that have hired people after they filed because they had a legit reason. You have to upfront about it. Don't let them find out and then have to explain it afterwards. Tell them in the intial interview and explain your situation.

[b_girl]

This has been common practice for many years, especially in the financial industry or jobs related to dealing with money. My husband has to keep a secret security clearance for the military. Credit is a big issue, people with financial problems are more prone to accept bribes, swindle, or embezzle money. They can come up with any other reason they want to not hire someone, they simply have to say they hired a more qualified candidate. My husband is also applying for a job with the Highway Patrol right now, huge background check, including credit. Trying to fight it, as some posters said, will not be worth it. What is there to fight? Fight to make a court force the employer to employ you?? Fight, as in create a law suit that will also come up on a background check, then future employers will see that you have sued an employer for discrimination. Most employers won't want the trouble of an employee that would go to those lengths.
It is about picking your battles.

While I agree with what you're saying, I'm saying that this is definitely a battle to pick. That's why this practice has continued to occur...no one fights it.

[Tbornetun]

If you do, then all future employers will see that you could be a liability to them. It would lessen your chances for hire moreso than just the credit issues alone.

FYI from the Federal Trade Commission: "Credit reports increasingly are used by employers in checking the suitability of applicants for employment," said Jodie Bernstein, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. "That’s legal under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, so long as the self-correcting mechanisms built into this statute are allowed to work. That depends on employers’ complying with their obligation under the law to tell applicants that they may obtain a credit report, notify applicants when a credit report played a role in a denial, and giving denied applicants the information they need to access and check their credit reports at no cost."

[TEW]

If you do, then all future employers will see that you could be a liability to them. It would lessen your chances for hire moreso than just the credit issues alone.."

[justbroke]

Perfect! We need more lawyers that have a passion for challenging the system! In a way, I respect the BK Trustees as they tend to push the envelope more often than Debtor Attorneys do. (Of course, many Trustees become or were BK Judges at one point or another... but that's a different story)

Nothing changes until someone challenges the status quo. I'm not a non-conformist. I personally believe in the law and the rule of law. However, where the law is apparently weak, ineffective or just plain wrong, I will challenge it in a manner that at least, brings my concerns to the forefront.

Many companies and people get away with doing things that are technically illegal, because no one ever challenges them to prove that they were right. We just walk away and move on to the next thing.

Sorry for my rant.

[Tbornetun]

My point in my previous post is that it IS LEGAL for them to deny employment based on credit. If someone wants to go to the expense to try to fight it and overturn law that has been in place for quite some time, more power to them. It is not classified as discrimination at this point. You would have to prove it in a court of law that the law is bogus and compel the judge agree with you.

If I were only in this for a paycheck, I don't beleive I would have told someone who has just filed bankruptcy to spend tons of money on a lawsuit that the chances of winning are slim. Trust me, suits like this one are quite expensive.

Also, do you think I am getting paid to offer my opinions and assistance on this board? I am only trying to help and throw a little logic into the mix as well.

[justbroke]

Also, do you think I am getting paid to offer my opinions and assistance on this board? I am only trying to help and throw a little logic into the mix as well.

I agree that some lawsuits are pointless. My point on challenging certain things was not directly at the original post. It was focused on true breeches of contract or the law.

To add my opinion... I would never bring a discrimination lawsuit against an employer, unless it's one of the named items to which you can't discriminate against (race, creed, religion, sex, age). Although, businesses and some organizations can and do discriminate on those basis. However, they have a legal leg to stand on. (For example, the Boy Scouts of America can discriminate against females. A Women's Professional Sport organization can discriminate about males.)

In this particular scenario and OP, I suggested just a letter explaining the situation. Employers hiring for certain professions can certainly discriminate for a variety of reasons.

[Tbornetun]

BTW, I feel it was quite insulting and judgmental for you to make this statement when all I am trying to do is help. Thanks for that.