There Law in the US ensures that the currenly unemployed may never again be employed.

Let me first attempt to be clear, and to state things I thought not need be stated. One shall find that I avoid listing those things which are not. It is for this reason that I did not list, in its entirety, title 15 USC, but did cite the definition for the relvant part of said statute. My opponent is correct, it should not be there but it is there nonetheless. Legislative History of ICR In 2000, after much lobbying from the insurance industry, congress (both houses) passed a bill title FDCPA Reform. By and through this legislation, buried in the minutia of the fine print, was the incorporation of tying one’s employment to ones credit score. Also, for the first time in US history, an employer was given the legal authority, (operative word being legal) to require a prospective employee to be evaluated by a third party for credit worthiness. Included, but not limited to or exhaustive, was the granting of this third party to gather information heretofore estopped by law being gathered by employers. These things include, but are not limited to, age, sex, credit score, race, and SSN. Prior to this reprehensible law no employer was permitted to have any of the above unless and until they hired an applicant. Inasmuch as no one can prove the negative, my opponent is free to cite the authority for age and gender bias in an application prior to the passing of the ICR portion of the FDCPA. The rationale for the ICR is, and was, that those who steal from employers tend to have low credit scores. Fallacious, but that is the reason from AIG et al. The result is, those who pay cash and do not use credit are refused employment. Those who fall behind on their payments because of layoffs or government bail outs, are refused employment. Those who have neighbors who do not like them may be refused employment. Those with the wrong personality type, are refused employment. All of the above is now possible under the ICR portion of Title 15 USC. I shall address my opponents concern over form and use standard Blue Book Citations of Primary and Secondary sources only, as is common in the practice of Law and would ask he do the same. (non government web sites do not qualify) It is my understanding that no case involving ICR’s has sought certiari. My opponents statement of the Law regarding ICRs is mistaken. In fact not only are employers allowed to do that which was illegal, but they are encouraged and rewarded by insurance companies and advised by legal counsel on how to do same. Should one desire an example of the use of same kindly go to Sears web page and attempt to fill out an application without signing (electronically) the waiver. The issue is not that the government knows what it has done, rather it is the now legal probabilities and actual effect of a portion of a federal statute. Lastly, a credit check is not an ICR. I apologize for listing a “not” but my opponent seems confused. Credit checks are those things done by creditors when one seeks credit from them, ICRs are a separate entity and have nothing to do with a loan. In fact it is now a stand alone industry, to use the term broadly. In fact an ICR contains no credit information normally found on a credit report. Legal Authorities Relied Upon TItle 15 USC§603§1681 15USC§604 FTC Information sheets