In the past the EEOC had at least partially disavowed criminal checks except in very limited industries because they were considered to be disproportionately negative for certain minorities.

The new EEOC guidance reiterates the four factors used to determine whether an employer’s hiring and other employment decisions and policies relating to criminal background checks violate the law:

1. Convictions as opposed to arrests
2. The nature and gravity of the offense or conduct
3. Time that has passed since the offense
4. The nature of the job held or sought.

It also provides specific examples of criminal background policies which the EEOC believes violate Title VII.

The EEOC also suggests employees who undergo criminal background checks should be told that they were denied the job because of a criminal conviction, and that there would have to be an opportunity for that applicant to demonstrate either that the screen was inaccurate or to state why they should not be denied the job. The employer would also have to review any additional information provided by the prospective employee regarding the conviction or their credentials. 

There are many more details about the EEOC’s new guidance. We suggest every employer read the full guidance at http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/arrest_conviction.cfm.

Follow VerifyProtect.com on Twitter!

This lapse in employment screening seems particularly stunning given that it was such an upper-level position (the very top!) with such a public company. But skipping such a critical step in the pre-employment screening process – namely, that of education verification – is something that is commonly done, particularly with someone of Thompson’s stature and distinguished career. Collectively, people in human resources and others involved in the hiring process think ‘Why would he make up anything at this point? Surely someone else would have caught a lie by now.’ It can seem almost ridiculous to spend time and money verifying someone’s education credentials at that level.

But Thompson’s story is exactly why it’s critical to conduct a thorough employment screening every single time. Yahoo is now dealing with a public relations nightmare, not to mention upheaval within its ranks and among its biggest investors. Those are headaches no business wants. So do yourself a favor, learn by others’ mistakes, and be thorough and unbiased in your own screening protocols.

Follow VerifyProtect.com on Twitter!

According to news reports, Yolanda Quesada was escorted out of the office where she’d worked full-time for five years and had been given recognition awards, service excellence pins and certificates of appreciation.  The reason: A background check conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation had turned up two shoplifting arrests, both from 1972, when Quesada was 18. She admits she stole clothing from a Milwaukee department store on both occasions; she was fined $50 for the first, and placed on one year of probation for the second.

Quesada’s former role with Wells Fargo did not include the handling of money, but company spokesman Jim Hines said “Because Wells Fargo is an insured depository institution, we are bound by federal law that generally prohibits us from hiring or continuing the employment of any person who we know has a criminal record involving dishonesty or breach of trust.”

Being bound by law to honor certain rules regarding the criminal records of employees or potential employees is understandable, but employers across all industries should use this example as a reminder to not only set fair practices in regards to employment screening, but to use good judgment and common sense when interpreting the results and comparing facts on background checks and criminal records with the tasks that the prospective employee will be in charge of. Every decision on the employment of an individual comes down to a judgment call; let’s use good judgment to hire good people.

Follow VerifyProtect.com on Twitter!

The Transportation Security Administration confirmed that some new employees were issued their security badges even though the third and final step in the background check process had not been completed. The delay was due to a backlog from a computer switchover, the TSA reported.

During the screening process, new employees are required to verify their identity. Then, they are matched to a terrorist watch list. If they are on the list, then they are tossed out. Next is a verification of a prospective employee’s criminal record. Finally, there is a security threat assessment conducted by the TSA. That check is pending for many of the new employees, but airports have been given the OK to grant the badges without that step being completed. The TSA has said security access is limited for those with the provisional badges, and there is no security threat in issuing the badges prematurely.

However safe the public is despite this lapse in protocol, the public relations nightmare it has caused is reason enough for all employers to make sure that their pre-employment screening processes are followed to the letter. No shortcuts should be allowed, for safety and financial concerns, as well as possible legal ramifications.

Follow VerifyProtect.com on Twitter!

www.VerifyProtect.com

Don’t think it’s that much of a problem? Think again. The Internal Revenue Service says that last year alone – tax year 2010 – more than 850,000 tax returns and $5.8 billion were associated with tax return identity theft.

The act would step up penalties for criminals who steal another’s identity, and their tax return. Also the list of victims of identity theft would be broadened to include businesses and charitable organizations, as many have been having trouble with identity theft.

Most victims are unaware that their identities have been stolen until they file their tax returns, only to be told by the IRS that someone claiming to be them already filed a return and claimed the refund.

Follow VerifyProtect.com on Twitter!

According to the report, nearly 75 percent of employers are conducting some sort of pre-employment screening on job applicants. The report claims that errors made by fly-by-night background check companies using shoddy business practices can — and have — cost qualified people good jobs.

“Federal regulatory agencies and states should rein in the Wild West of the background screening industry by holding companies accountable,” said Persis Yu, the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) staff attorney and co-author of the report.

When hiring a screening service to conduct your business’s background checks, research the company’s history and reputation. VerifyProtect.com is a division of American Tenant Screen, which is a leading provider of integrated screening services for businesses in the markets we serve. The company provides screening services globally to more than 3,000 clients, and has been in business for nearly 25 years.

Follow VerifyProtect.com on Twitter!

The bookkeeper was hired in 2003 before background checks were a routine part of the hiring process. If the diocese had run a background check on her, it would have discovered she had been convicted of grand larceny in one case and had pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in another, according to an article in The New York Times.

This story should serve as a reminder to all those who still believe pre-employment screening is not worth the time and money it takes to conduct them. Criminal records and credit checks are a must for anyone who will be entrusted with the finances of your business. In particular all those who handle money, or care for others, should be thoroughly vetted. 

Follow VerifyProtect.com on Twitter!

Employers need to think long and hard about possible legal consequences before asking job applicants for their username and passwords in order to access personal profiles on select social media websites. Employers often don’t realize that once they’ve asked for an applicant’s social media login information, they become liable for the content posted.  This can be trouble in a few different ways.

1. If an applicant admits guilt to some kind of crime within their personal profile, the employer who is given access to it may assume liability for protecting the information they find.
2. If an employer finds out an applicant’s age, sexual orientation or another protected class, and then decides not to hire that person, they could be opening themselves up to discrimination claims by the applicant who was not given a job.
3. If an employer misses signals or warning signs and something happens (crime is committed, someone is injured) the employer could become liable.

Social media background checks are here to stay in some capacity. But employers need to approach this trend with careful consideration.

Follow VerifyProtect.com on Twitter!

Last week the Illinois Senate passed legislation that would require online dating websites that offer services in Illinois to clearly disclose whether or not they conduct criminal background checks on all members. The bill also would make it so online dating sites must disclose whether they admit members who have criminal records, and use government databases, including criminal court records and sex offender registries.

If it passes, those who are found to be in violation of the law could be fined up to $50,000 per violation. The measure, just like the joint statement issued last month, is indicative of a trend in social networking and online dating – where people often get to know each other before they even meet face to face – to take more precautions to make sure members are kept safe.

Follow VerifyProtect.com on Twitter!

www.VerifyProtect.com

The survey, conducted by business investigations firm Corporate Resolutions, Inc., found that 39 percent of CFOs who responded to the survey had encountered fraud during their tenure as CFO within their own firm or at a portfolio company. And 81 percent had decided not to invest in a company because of suspected fraud or other integrity issues.

Such numbers underscore the importance and relevance of background checks as part of a healthy company’s investment in its own future. It’s not enough to blindly trust employees, particularly ones who have some hand in and handling of the company’s finances. Sixty-seven percent of CFOs surveyed had encountered asset misappropriation, and 17 percent had discovered corruption of some kind.

In today’s global economy companies sometimes hire people overseas or across the country without ever actually meeting them and shaking hands. While long-distance hiring is a normal part of 21^st century business, the practice makes conducting due diligence on every viable employee candidate more important than ever.

Follow VerifyProtect.com on Twitter!

www.VerifyProtect.com