<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Unlawful Background Check Policy Costs Pepsi Big	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.felhaber.com/unlawful-background-check-policy-costs-pepsi-big/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.felhaber.com/unlawful-background-check-policy-costs-pepsi-big/</link>
	<description>Small firm relationships. Large firm impact.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Jan 2016 23:28:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Abby Abbott		</title>
		<link>https://www.felhaber.com/unlawful-background-check-policy-costs-pepsi-big/#comment-66</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Abby Abbott]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 11:37:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://minnesotaemploymentlawreport.wp.lexblogs.com/2012/01/unlawful-background-check-policy-costs-pepsi-big/#comment-66</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Title VII and related employment laws regarding disparate treatment and disparate impact are pretty clear.  It has nothing to do with the government being &quot;wrong.&quot;  It has to do with being fair in hiring practices and not discriminating and using non-job-related reasons as a justification for the discrimination. Discrimination is dsicrimination no matter what cloak you try to use to disguise it. Pepsi&#039;s HR and Legal department&#039;s really dropped the ball on this one.  This is basic HR stuff.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Title VII and related employment laws regarding disparate treatment and disparate impact are pretty clear.  It has nothing to do with the government being &#8220;wrong.&#8221;  It has to do with being fair in hiring practices and not discriminating and using non-job-related reasons as a justification for the discrimination. Discrimination is dsicrimination no matter what cloak you try to use to disguise it. Pepsi&#8217;s HR and Legal department&#8217;s really dropped the ball on this one.  This is basic HR stuff.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Rhonda		</title>
		<link>https://www.felhaber.com/unlawful-background-check-policy-costs-pepsi-big/#comment-65</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rhonda]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:39:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://minnesotaemploymentlawreport.wp.lexblogs.com/2012/01/unlawful-background-check-policy-costs-pepsi-big/#comment-65</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Why on earth is the government wrong in this case?  There are many arrests that never lead to convictions and those applicants should not be barred from employment.  There are plenty of examples where even the arrest is &quot;iffy.&quot;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why on earth is the government wrong in this case?  There are many arrests that never lead to convictions and those applicants should not be barred from employment.  There are plenty of examples where even the arrest is &#8220;iffy.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Colleen Hornberger		</title>
		<link>https://www.felhaber.com/unlawful-background-check-policy-costs-pepsi-big/#comment-64</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Colleen Hornberger]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:13:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://minnesotaemploymentlawreport.wp.lexblogs.com/2012/01/unlawful-background-check-policy-costs-pepsi-big/#comment-64</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I think you are being a little naive about what the article is really saying, Xavier.  What you said is correct -- Pepsi is a huge international corporation with an army of excellent lawyers, so they do have a policy in place that was probably not a blanket one.  I think what we are dealing with is another arm of our fascinatingly intrusive government that will go to any lengths to make sure that we are wrong, and they are right.  You might take a look at the NLRB and Boeing Corp - South Carolina situation, and I think we should all read Andrew Napolitano&#039;s book, How Dangerous is it to Be Right When the Government is Wrong.

Things are changing and pretty rapidly.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think you are being a little naive about what the article is really saying, Xavier.  What you said is correct &#8212; Pepsi is a huge international corporation with an army of excellent lawyers, so they do have a policy in place that was probably not a blanket one.  I think what we are dealing with is another arm of our fascinatingly intrusive government that will go to any lengths to make sure that we are wrong, and they are right.  You might take a look at the NLRB and Boeing Corp &#8211; South Carolina situation, and I think we should all read Andrew Napolitano&#8217;s book, How Dangerous is it to Be Right When the Government is Wrong.</p>
<p>Things are changing and pretty rapidly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Xavier Smith		</title>
		<link>https://www.felhaber.com/unlawful-background-check-policy-costs-pepsi-big/#comment-63</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Xavier Smith]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:57:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://minnesotaemploymentlawreport.wp.lexblogs.com/2012/01/unlawful-background-check-policy-costs-pepsi-big/#comment-63</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[If using a blanket background-verification policy is well known in the industry, why would a company with the size and stature of Pepsi have such a policy in place?  Wouldn&#039;t the human-resources department or the legal team that it surely retains have raised an issue with it?  Certainly, the company couldn&#039;t be shocked that it was called out on this behavior.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If using a blanket background-verification policy is well known in the industry, why would a company with the size and stature of Pepsi have such a policy in place?  Wouldn&#8217;t the human-resources department or the legal team that it surely retains have raised an issue with it?  Certainly, the company couldn&#8217;t be shocked that it was called out on this behavior.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
