The EEOC is suing the Washington Post's Kaplan business for using credit histories in vetting job candidates. Why? Because in the judgment of the lawyers at the EEOC, ""This practice has an unlawful discriminatory impact because of race and is neither job-related nor justified by business necessity."
Perhaps I'm wrong, but my guess is that the Washington Post has been a big supporter of disparate impact lawsuits in the past.
I am not convinced of the Karma here either.
Well actually if you follow the larger brouhaha going down in for profit education, you could have bought WPO discounted at the 300 dollar level.
I kind of like the Washinton Post, but not necessarily for the smaller paper business. A main reason I like it is that Buffet owns it.
It is actually a broadcasting and cable tv company. It owns CBS, NBC, and ABC channels. The stock has rallied quite a bit, but might still be worth more.
Heck the paper itself might have been a big supporter of disperate impact suits. If not then the channels it airs probably have.
Given the dominance of Kaplan and PMBR bar reviews I would say that (WPO) is the biggest instructor of "disperate impact" in the United States.
It makes it even better that it is Kaplan who is being sued.
On the other hand I kind of think Kaplan University is the best for profit university in terms of value to students.
Plus if private universities are trying to say that it really costs them 80k a year to educate a student, why is it that Kaplan can basically do it for under 10k?
I kind of think this is the playout on the war against for profit universities. It would start to get strange for Kaplan and for profit universities, "if no one has never been able to not afford " an education on the basis of credit worthiness, if it then turns out that Kaplan themselves make hireing decisions on this basis.
After all Kaplan sells functional education/trainning. Something that will be "usefull" but if it turns out that its lower income graduates can't get jobs, because they have poor credit... well this will make Kaplan look bad, and will end up increasing the heat on Kaplan and for profit education.
The thing is WPO is a huge company, maybe they have been a huge supporter of disperate impact suits in the past. And maybe disperate impact suits bennefit them currently.
That is maybe WPO will kind of slack with the defense and pay a small drop in the bucket fine, but perhaps it will set precedent and lead to an increase in the number of states where credit histories cannot be used.
So loosing might be a pyrrhic victory for WPO, and Kaplan in particular. They have more to lose by a judgement that strongly defends their right to discriminate on the basis of credit history.