EEOC Decree Gives Reconsideration Rights, Requires Dollar General Background-Check Reforms

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reached a consent decree with Dollar General in EEOC v. Dolgencorp, LLC that requires the retailer to change how it uses criminal-history checks in hiring and to pay a monetary settlement. The decree focuses on individualized assessment of applicants with criminal records, formal reconsideration procedures for people harmed by background checks, and the use of criminology expertise when the company continues to rely on criminal-history screens.

Under the decree, applicants or employees who receive an adverse employment decision tied to a criminal-history screen must be given clear notice of the reasons and an opportunity to seek reconsideration. The process includes timelines and contact points for appeal, and employers must document how reconsideration options are communicated. Where Dollar General retains criminal-history screens for particular roles, the company is required to consult or rely on criminology expertise to ensure that policies are job-related and consistent with business necessity.

The settlement and process changes aim to reduce discriminatory effects that arise when blanket exclusions based on arrest or conviction records screen out groups of applicants. For workers, the most immediate change is procedural: people denied an offer or removed from consideration because of a background check will have a formal channel to submit additional information, explain the circumstances of a record, or show evidence of rehabilitation. That can change hiring outcomes and give applicants a clearer path to challenge decisions they believe are unfair or based on outdated information.

For store managers and HR teams, the decree imposes practical obligations. Employers must update adverse-action notices and reconsideration templates, maintain records of communications, and train staff on how to evaluate criminal-history information in an individualized way. The requirement to use criminology expertise also signals a shift away from one-size-fits-all exclusion rules toward risk assessments that are tied more closely to the duties of a specific job.

The case highlights a broader compliance and cultural issue in retail hiring: employers that rely heavily on background checks may face legal exposure if their policies disproportionately impact protected groups or fail to consider individual circumstances. Companies will need to balance loss-prevention concerns with fair-chance practices and the legal standards the decree reinforces.

What this means for readers is concrete. Workers who believe a background check cost them a job should look to the reconsideration process and preserve documentation that shows rehabilitation or explains the context of a record. Employers should immediately review their criminal-history procedures, update notices and timelines, and involve legal or criminology experts where required. The decree sets a clear expectation: background checks can be used, but not as blunt instruments that deny people a fair chance to work.