>> JUST PUT IT IN TERMS I CAN UNDERSTAND.
>> SO LET'S USE YOUR EXAMPLE OF THE HAMBURGLAR.
THE HAMBURGLAR APPLIES TO McDONALD'S.
THE BOX IS NOT ON THE APPLICATION.
HE GETS TO AN INTERVIEW.
THEY DO THE BACKGROUND CHECK.
FIND OUT THAT HE HAS A PAST HISTORY OF STEALING HAMBURERS.
>> HAMBURGLARY.
>> HAMBURGLARLY.
McDONALD'S COULD THEN EXERCISE THEIR DISCRETION AND SAY WE'RE
NOT GOING TO HIRE THE HAMBURGLAR.
AND YOU KNOW WHAT?
THEY WOULDN'T BE IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS
ACT BECAUSE THEY EXERCISED AN INDIVIDUALIZED ASSESSMENT WITH
THE HAMBURGLAR.
>> BUT BEATS CHANGE THE HYPOTHETICAL.
THE HAMBURGLAR NOW GOES, APPLIES TO TARGET.
NO HAMBURGLARS AT TARGET.
HAMBURGLARS HIRE'S.
EVERYTHING IS FINE.
BECAUSE THERE'S NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HIS PAST HISTORY OF
HAMBURGLARY AND BEING A CASHIER AT TARGET.
>> SO YOU'RE TELLING ME IF THE HAMBURGLAR WALKS INTO AN
INTERVIEW AT TARGET WEARING A STRIPPED BLACK AND WHITE SHIRT
AND A FEDORA YELLING "RABBLE, RABLELE," HE COULD GET HIRED
AT TARGET?
>> HE POSSIBLY COULD, BUT HE PROBABLY WOULDN'T, BECAUSE HE'S
WEARING A FEDORA WITH A STRIPPED UNIFORM SAYING "RABBLE, RABBLE."
IT'S ALL ABOUT WHO'S MOST QUALIFIED.