Read on Twitter
Yesterday, I wrote about how federal law allows private employers to discriminate against workers who've filed for bankruptcy. I wanted to share a remarkable legal detail I learned while reporting out the story. https://www.wsj.com/articles/bankruptcy-is-extra-burden-for-some-job-seekers-11592991002
Here's the part of the federal law that allows that kind of discrimination. Read it carefully. It sure reads like it bans private employers from denying a job to a candidate who had filed for bankruptcy, right?
But that's not how judges in three appeals courts interpreted the wording in lawsuits filed by rejected job applicants after the 2008 economic recession. Why not? They looked at this provision right above it, which bans governments from discriminating against job seekers.
The bit in yellow--"deny employment to"--wasn't mentioned in the private employer part. The broad language that Congress used for private employers didn't cover job applicants, the judges ruled, because it didn't explicitly mention anything about denying employment, they reasoned
In my reporting, I learned that consumer advocates were completely floored by this reasoning. That's partly why this issue remains controversial today.
Here's one of the appeals court rulings that expands on the idea that the private employer section doesn't cover the hiring process. https://www.georgiabankruptcyblog.com/eleventh-circuit-cases/eleventh-circuit-cases-eleventh-circuit-affirms-private-employers-right-to-deny-employment-because-of-bankruptcy-filing
The bottom line: when I first read the law, I was so confused as to why private employers were allowed to deny employment to someone based on their past bankruptcy filing. Seemed clear to me. But the rulings show that it's not.
The power of case law, y'all.
The power of case law, y'all.
