I don’t care what you believe about my job, “employment law specialist.”

I'm explaining to you the real obstacles that my clients face. They are indigent, they are trying, and they get nowhere. For you to come in and just say "nah this doesn't happen and if it does just hire an employment lawyer" is like, peak privilege.

That's exactly my point. This happens routinely and there is nothing you or anyone else can do to stop it.

I am sure my indigent clients will go running to the nearest employment lawyer in the hopes that they will somehow find a way to prove that they aren't getting calls because employers are inappropriately applying EEOC guidelines that flat out say the conduct at issue can be used as a basis not to hire them.

See, I know you weren't actually hearing me because you're telling me to have them do exactly what they're already doing.

>those other companies need to be set straight if they are in fact engaging in that discriminatory practice.

Again, zero way to prove this is happening, but everyone knows it's happening.

I'm not angry. You're telling me you can solve this problem for my clients, I'm telling you they could use the help.

Okay, PM me your firm's info so I can send all my clients to you when they can't get calls back from all the applications they send out.

I literally never said, implied, or suggested I am an expert in employment law. I've told you about the real issues my clients face with this, and you're basically telling me "nah, can't happen." So let me send them to you.

You aren't actually listening to what I'm telling you the issue is, so it's pretty pointless for me to keep spinning my wheels but I'll try one last time.

I asked you where the information came from because I was hoping there was something I could direct my clients to in order to help them. But there is nothing in the EEOC guidelines that is going to prevent employers from simply not calling an applicant back when they see pending charges. They don't have to explain that decision to anyone. But everyone knows why, and I think you know exactly what would happen if one of my clients went to an employment lawyer and said "I'm not getting any calls back on my applications and I think it's because I have pending charges."

Okay, so let me clarify that I think this practice is messed up but that does not mean it isn't routine. For the record, "law specialist" I am a lawyer, I practice criminal defense and I have dozens of clients who are in the same boat as OP. They file applications and can't even get a call for an interview. No one is telling them "we saw you have pending charges and we won't hire you because of that." They just aren't getting calls. It doesn't take a genius to understand that those things are related and that there is nothing preventing this from happening all the damn time.

You might get some corporate case once in a blue moon where an applicant was making their way through the hiring process and picked up an arrest and suddenly the employer loses interest and you get to make an argument that they didn't strictly follow the EEOC guidelines, but I've got 10 clients every day who tell me they're applying everywhere and can't even get a call back because employers do a google search or check the judicial website and see they have open cases. No one in the employment law sector is even going to hear about a 10th of those cases, let alone try to litigate them.

Trying to separate the conduct of the arrest from the arrest itself, in this context, is playing semantics. The result is the same for the applicant.

You and I both know that even if the EEOC outright banned using the facts of an arrest/pending charges as a basis not to hire, there is almost never going to be a way to prove that's what happened because employers aren't required to, and don't volunteer, information about why candidates aren't selected.

You are playing semantics. You can't just admit that this happens routinely and is justified by the very guidelines you claim prohibit it. Very weird.

It literally says the employer can determine that the conduct at issue in the arrest is a reason not to hire if it makes the person not fit for the position.

And get real, employers aren’t telling you the reason they don’t hire you. There is nothing that actually prevents them from just deciding a candidate with pending charges “isn’t a good fit” and just not calling them back.

But you just read the same thing I did where the EEOC says they can use an arrest as the basis not to hire someone.

Ok, so we agree that pending charges can be used as a reason not to hire someone. Awesome.

But they CAN use an arrest as a reason not to hire someone if they determine that the alleged conduct makes the applicant a bad fit for the position.

So that says pretty much what the link I posted says which is essentially that arrests alone shouldn’t be the basis for refusing to hire someone but you can refuse to hire based the alleged conduct if it disqualifies the applicant for the position or if you Decide the conduct is a good reason not to hire them.

Actually nevermind, I’ll show you.

> The fact of an arrest does not establish that criminal conduct has occurred. Arrest records are not probative of criminal conduct, as stated in the Commission's 1990 policy statement on Arrest Records. However, an employer may act based on evidence of conduct that disqualifies an individual for a particular position.

The only thing I see in EEOC guidelines is that employers are supposed to treat people with similar convictions in a similar manner. Nothing prohibits or even necessarily discourages employers from refusing to hire people with pending charges.

Can you show me where?

What are you basing this claim on?

Good suggestion. Cannon was the only place I found last year that would reliably have Mets games on.

Yes, there is.

Glad to hear mod enforcement may be tightening up on those posts. Unfortunately people won't read this post because people looking to move to New Haven aren't likely to be subscribed here. They just come and post their question.

>And if you happen to be a bot promoting a certain New Haven pizza poster, you can go f*ck right the hell off

Fucking THANK YOU, this was pissing me off so much for a while.

You really should consider turning it down while you sleep and when you leave the house. If you can get a programmable thermostat it will pay for itself in the savings. Your home doesn’t need to be 70 degrees when you’re asleep.

Mine is set at 68 when I’m home and down to 62 when I’m away/sleeping.

I live in a ~1400 sq. foot 2 floor home with finished basement and my current bill is 91 CCF. I have gas for heat, hot water, and stove. My total bill is $152.

Something is wrong /u/ApizzSavant. Are you keeping your thermostat at 70 all the time?? Is it a programable thermostat so that the temp can go down at night and during the day while you're at work?

If you get sued you absolutely have to disclose it. It’s basic discovery.

You guys can downvote, but know that even in civil cases, there are consequences for destroying or hiding evidence.