When employers rely on background checks to make hiring decisions, how far is too far?

It is hard enough to find a job in today's
economy, but the use of background  and credit checks by employers to make
hiring decisions, can make it even  tougher.
With more than four unemployed workers  per job opening, employers are relying on credit and criminal reports to help  thin the applicant pool and avoid liability
due to negligent hiring. Ninety  percent of employers admit to running
background checks on job applicants (60%  run credit checks). But at a time when jobs are scarce and 5.4 million people  have been unemployed for more than six months, a discussion has been generated  amongst lawmakers, employers and regulators about the way in which negative  information is being used. 
Millions people who lost their jobs  during the recession at no fault of their own, may have been left unable to pay  their bills on time, which damaged their credit and has now left them with an  even more diminished probabilty of finding a job. Applicants who may have had a  minor criminal offense 20 years ago can still find it hard to find employment,  even if their records have been clean since. 
A recent study has found no connection between an individual's credit rating and their likelihood to perform at a job. This belief has prompted several states to  limit credit and background checks only to positions for which the information  is pertinent and others to provide guidance to employers on how to properly  evaluate criminal records in pre-employment screening. 
This path, may very well lead to  employers having to remove the "box" on employment applications that ask about a  candidate's criminal past and evaluate the candidate's skills and experience  first.

---