Set back for Bankrutpcy Discrimination...

[HHM]

Jan. 29, 2010

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10621598750146046210&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Court holds that private employers may discriminate and deny employment to those that have filed bankruptcy. Note, private employers may not terminate employment based on BK, but this ruling does allow denial of employment.

[epiphany]

Now there's a law (or lack of one), I'd like to see changed.

ep

[BobMango]

I think that's the right decision. I think government gets too involved in business these days. If I as a private employer think that a bankruptcy might be important to know about before I hire someone I should have the right to use that as a hiring criteria. I would certainly take everything into account, but I know some companies set criteria and then never look beyond that, but then that's probably to their detriment.

[banca rotta]

I guess no one will ever work again since I am certain bk filings will double every year before the economy turns for the better.

I don't have anything to back this up but my guess is there are at least 20 million people that need to file but won't because they either don't know that they are alowed to. Some think the 2005 change prevents them from filing so they don't bother.

Others are trying to do the right thing and they are borrowing from 401k's to try to get ahead until they end up filing anyway.

I came up with the 20 million number because there are over 15 million unemployed or under employed, most of which will be defaulting. Then there's the working folks with no health insurance.

[angles]

[QUOTE=banca rotta;430738]I don't have anything to back this up but my guess is there are at least 20 million people that need to file but won't because they either don't know that they are alowed to. Some think the 2005 change prevents them from filing so they don't bother.QUOTE]

That was us 8 months ago and thanks to this site and an attorney who sort of knows what he is doing we were able to file.

I agree that there will be a lot more filings based off of the end of unemployment benefits, additional foreclosures, and other factors. We all read about how most people waited too long to file and I think we will continue to see this lag in then next few years and the numbers will grow.

And then employment, credit, and home loans come into play to the BK filers. Since this meltdown the pendulum has swung the other way and banks wont give anyone a loan unless they are ideal candidates. I believe this will be short lived because banks need new customers and eventually they will run out of ideal candidates. The same will go for employment and credit cards because there are just too many people who have filed or have bad credit as a result of this economy.

[mrskal]

.

Others are trying to do the right thing and they are borrowing from 401k's to try to get ahead until they end up filing anyway.

..

Exactly what we did to try and stay afloat. If I knew it would have been exempt, we never would have touched ours. Thinking back, would have also stopped paying CC's and mortgage alot sooner too. I am thankful for this forum, it is where I am getting my BK education. We are using a lawyer, but it helps to know what the heck to ask, and how things will progress.

[wonderingrov]

I have to wonder at the logic of companies sometimes. Which is better - a potential employee who is struggling to pay bills who may have creditors lining up to sue so they can garnish wages because they refuse to file bankruptcy, or a potential employee who has decided to resolve debt issues with a bankruptcy?


Then again, if it is a company that just outright refuses to hire an employee solely because of a bankruptcy, it is probably not a company I where I want to work anyway.

[oregonpilot]

New Oregon Law

After July 1, 2010, most employers will no longer be able to use credit reports in evaluating applicants and employees. The Oregon Legislature passed Senate Bill 1045 during the February 2010 special session, and the governor signed it into law on March 29, 2010. The new law will go into effect on July 1, 2010

[Fallonedward]

After July 1, 2010, most employers will no longer be able to use credit reports in evaluating applicants and employees. The Oregon Legislature passed Senate Bill 1045 during the February 2010 special session, and the governor signed it into law on March 29, 2010. The new law will go into effect on July 1, 2010

I wish every state would file that law into effect.

[helpmeout]

After July 1, 2010, most employers will no longer be able to use credit reports in evaluating applicants and employees. The Oregon Legislature passed Senate Bill 1045 during the February 2010 special session, and the governor signed it into law on March 29, 2010. The new law will go into effect on July 1, 2010

Good, employers should not be able to discriminate based on credit hsitory or whether or not a person has filed for bankruptcy. Discrimination is just wrong.

[MSbklawyer]

Good, employers should not be able to discriminate based on credit hsitory or whether or not a person has filed for bankruptcy. Discrimination is just wrong.

Turn the tables here: Suppose a job-hunter decides to forego applying at a business that has filed for bankruptcy in the past. The business is on solid footing now, but this particular job-hunter just finds the idea of bankruptcy distasteful and doesn't want to work for a company that has filed for bankruptcy. Is that 'wrong'? Shouldn't that individual have the freedom to decide who he wants to work for? Even if his criteria seems silly and arbitrary to you and me, shouldn't he have the right to decide who he works for? What right do we have to tell a business owner that our judgment should supplant his on the hiring criteria for his business? Suppose we do force potential employers to ignore prior bankruptcies when hiring. What happens when it turns out that the business owner's suspicions were right, and the formerly bankrupt employee misappropriates funds? Does the government then have a duty to make it right?

There are lots of "wrongs" in the world: Some kids don't get anything much for Christmas; Ugly girls don't usually get to be the homecoming queen; bald-headed guys might be rejected by some women for no other reason than their bald heads; some employers won't hire fat people -- to name a few. But if we're to retain any liberty at all, we have to realize that there are some things that are just none of the goverment's business.

[helpmeout]

Turn the tables here: Suppose a job-hunter decides to forego applying at a business that has filed for bankruptcy in the past. The business is on solid footing now, but this particular job-hunter just finds the idea of bankruptcy distasteful and doesn't want to work for a company that has filed for bankruptcy. Is that 'wrong'? Shouldn't that individual have the freedom to decide who he wants to work for?

Let's turn the tables even more, the same arguement that you are attempting to use can be used for not hiring somebody based on race, religion and gender. Shouldn't the employer have the ability to decide if they have a person of a different race or religion working for them? Or have the ability to have only men or women working for them?

Discrimination is discrimination. No matter how many different ways you put it.

And discrimination is wrong.

And it will continue for as long as people continue to justify it.

[MSbklawyer]

Let's turn the tables even more, the same arguement that you are attempting to use can be used for not hiring somebody based on race, religion and gender. Shouldn't the employer have the ability to decide if they have a person of a different race or religion working for them? Or have the ability to have only men or women working for them?

Discrimination is discrimination. No matter how many different ways you put it.

And discrimination is wrong.

And it will continue for as long as people continue to justify it.

I'm not arguing that discrimination is not "wrong" on some level. My point is that it's a wrong that the government has no business trying to right. And that if the government is going to be given the power to right this wrong, then it should logically work both ways. Prospective employees could not decline employment with the employers on the basis of their past financials. And that if we're going to give the government the power to prevent that kind of discrimination, are we going to also give it the power to tell employers that they cannot discriminate against the fat, the short, the ugly, the bald, the ex-convicts or what have you?

Sure, discrimination may be "wrong". But in a free society, people should have the right to make "wrong" decisions in their affairs, including setting qualifications for those they propose to do business with.

[BobMango]

Let's turn the tables even more, the same arguement that you are attempting to use can be used for not hiring somebody based on race, religion and gender. Shouldn't the employer have the ability to decide if they have a person of a different race or religion working for them? Or have the ability to have only men or women working for them?

Discrimination is discrimination. No matter how many different ways you put it.

And discrimination is wrong.

And it will continue for as long as people continue to justify it.

I'll justify it. We're talking about two different things here. Discrimination is not wrong. We use it every day in the decisions we make. Basketball teams make decisions based on size, skill, etc. Discrimination is a good thing, I tell my kids all the time to be more discriminating in their decision making regarding friends, school choice, etc.

Where discrimination becomes a problem is when the factors have nothing to do with the situation and are designed to support ones particular prejudices. We would call this illegal discrimination. (Much like the argument of immigration vs. illegal immigration, one is good, one is bad.) So while your skin color or gender or age don't necessarily have an impact on your ability to do a job, your financial situation may and the government has no business telling us what criteria we can use when that criteria has a relationship to the job.

[MSbklawyer]

I'll justify it. We're talking about two different things here. Discrimination is not wrong. We use it every day in the decisions we make. Basketball teams make decisions based on size, skill, etc. Discrimination is a good thing, I tell my kids all the time to be more discriminating in their decision making regarding friends, school choice, etc.

Where discrimination becomes a problem is when the factors have nothing to do with the situation and are designed to support ones particular prejudices. We would call this illegal discrimination. (Much like the argument of immigration vs. illegal immigration, one is good, one is bad.) So while your skin color or gender or age don't necessarily have an impact on your ability to do a job, your financial situation may and the government has no business telling us what criteria we can use when that criteria has a relationship to the job.

Well said, Mango. The problems start though when some people believe that there is a rational basis for their discrimination and others see it as arbitrary and unreasonable and want the government to "fix it". Some people believe that people who have filed bankruptcy -- for whatever reason, regardless of the circumstances -- should not be trusted with money. Personally, I don't think that that is a valid discrimination. But I don't have any skin in the game when it comes to someone else's hiring decisions. So I am content to let him discriminate however he sees fit with regard to his business.