Final answer:
Lawsuits challenging employer inquiries about an applicant's arrest record are based on anti-discrimination laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and efforts like the "Ban the box" campaign to give ex-offenders fair employment opportunities and reduce racial disparities.
Step-by-step explanation:
Lawsuits that target the ability of employers to question applicants about an arrest, even if it did not result in a conviction, are generally based on the principles of anti-discrimination laws and the drive for ex-offender rehabilitation. An example of such laws is the "Ban the box", which attempts to prevent employment discrimination by forbidding the question of criminal history on initial job applications, thus addressing racial disparities in the criminal justice system and giving ex-offenders better job opportunities. However, the unintended consequence of such policies can be that employers may resort to statistical discrimination and become less likely to interview young, low-skilled Black and Hispanic men, potentially due to assumptions made in the absence of criminal history information.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a fundamental piece of legislation protecting job applicants from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) advises against employers asking questions about these and other personal characteristics as they might lead to discriminatory practices. This is true whether the question directly addresses these characteristics or if it's likely to reveal such information indirectly.
To establish grounds for a racial discrimination lawsuit related to employment practices, plaintiffs must demonstrate that they are being treated less favorably than employees of another race with similar job roles, educational backgrounds, and expertise. This underlines the importance of objective and fair hiring procedures, free from discriminatory biases.