|
True Stories
True story. An applicant for a
manufacturing job looks good in the interview, and the hiring manger is prepared to make
an offer. Human Resources sends the background package to Employment
Screening Resources (ESR) for a standard background. The applicant it turns out,
has over ten criminal convictions. They range from assaulting police officers, to selling
drugs, to possessing weapons to assault on his girlfriends. But for the standard ESR
background check, that person would have been a member of that companys workforce.
What a nightmare.
Another true story. A health care facility makes an offer to a health worker with
access to drugs. The ESR standard check disclosed two serious drug
related convictions. That person came within an inch of having a key to the drug locker.
Another true story: A large firm was about to make a job offer to an applicant for a
highly responsible financial position. The applicant failed to disclose serious offenses
that ESR immediately detected. That firm had almost put their future into that
applicants hands.
These and many other true stories from the ESR files show why firms
need the protection of a pre-employment background check. Unfortunately, not every firm
has a company such as ESR do background checks. The majority
of firms hire blind, risking workplace violence and financial ruin.
ESR recently found a newspaper article about a transportation firm in the
Western United States that hired a driver that sexually assaulted a passenger. It turns
out that the driver had recently been released from prison for a sex crime. In the
article, the company clamed that it had done everything it could to perform a background
check. In order to test the ESR systems, ESR did a background check just
based upon the limited information in the newspaper. Within six hours, ESR had the
full story on the drivers background. For very little money, that transportation
company could have been saved a great deal of exposure. |
|
First, contrary to popular belief, there is no national computer of
criminal records available to private employers. Although the FBI and state law
enforcement has access to a national computer database, it is absolutely illegal for a
private company to obtain criminal information from law enforcement computer databases. Instead,
private companies must obtain criminal records on a county by county basis at the actual
courthouse. There are a number of states that have statewide criminal databases (not
including California), but the statewide requests often take too long for the hiring
process and require burdensome paperwork. In addition, not all statewide depository of
records are accurate. Many state wide systems are only clearing houses for those
counties that choose to deposit records. There are no guarantees that all counties are up
to date or are even participating.
An experienced screening company such as ESR has the ability to have public
record researchers go to any courthouse in the United States to research whether a
particular applicant has a criminal record. ESR generally needs the persons
social security number and birthdate, as well as any other or previous names the person
went under.
Obviously, researchers cannot go to every courthouse in the country for every person,
since there are over 3,000 jurisdictions. However, depending upon the companys
needs, ESR will send researchers to those counties that should be checked. As a
minimum, ESR recommends that an employer check the county of residence and current
employment, if different.
For the best protection, ESR recommends that an employer search each county
where a person has lived worked or studied for the past seven years. The seven years is
recommended is generally recommended given the current state of law. In November of
1998, congress amended to Fair Credit Reporting Act to do away with the seven year
limitation. However, Congress left in tact the portion of the law that provided that in
states with a more restricted rules, the more restricted rule would apply. Since
many states, such as California, passed laws that copied the provisions of the FCRA
including the seven year limitation in certain instances, there is currently no workable
national rule. For that reason, the seven year rule is still recommended until
Congress clarifies the national policy.
There are some counties in certain states that are available on a database.
However, employers should never use a criminal database for employment decisions, and
should always make sure that a screening company is utilizing the most hands-on means
available to obtain criminal records, which is usually an on-site search at the
courthouse. There are a number of disadvantages to a database search. First,
the database may not be absolutely current. Secondly, not all counties have criminal
records on the database. Third, databases are notorious for being inaccurate.
Fourth, if an applicants name does appear, the actual records must still be pulled
from the courthouse. Denying employment based just upon a name in a database without
reviewing the actual court file would violate a number of laws and rights of
applicants. Employers who rely on databases for employment decisions are opening
themselves up to serious lawsuits. The bottom line is that an employer who relies
upon such a database, and still hires a person with a criminal record resulting in some
claim of damages, may not have the legal protection they thought they had. There
would be a considerable legal question as to whether having used a database would
provide evidence of due diligence. In other words, databases may well not
demonstrate that an employer took reasonable care.
Where the employer seeks the full seven-year search, ESR will look in every
jurisdiction it can locate, based upon the application, driving record, social security or
credit report, and employment verifications. The obvious difficulty is that a person may
have a criminal record in a county where there is no indication that the person has had
any contact. However, experienced firms such as ESR will look at gaps in employment
or residential history to determine if more questions should be asked.
Because the record searches normally take place at the actual courthouse, it can take
up to two full days after the order is placed to obtain a report. In many jurisdictions,
older records have been placed in storage. Where there is a possible match, additional
time is sometime needed to have the local county clerk pull the records from storage. ESR
has no control over how long that process may take. |
|
Another complicating factor is that most counties have separate records
for felonies and misdemeanors. Generally, felonies are the more serious crime that carries
a greater potential punishment. However, most employers will also want to know about
misdemeanor convictions as well. This can also include serious problems, such as assaults,
threats, weapon charges, drug or alcohol possession, or crimes involving theft and
honesty. Most employers want BOTH felonies and misdemeanors checked in all jurisdictions.
It is the policy of ESR to check both. Some counties charge an extra fee for
providing copies of certain records, as well. Another important issue is to make sure
that the case on file with the court actually belongs to the applicant. That means going
beyond just a name match. Court researchers look for things such as date of birth, social
security number, drivers license or some other identify in order to make a match.
Because there always the possibility of a criminal record not belonging to the applicant
in question, it is important to follow the rules set down by Congress in the Fair Credit
Reporting Act. Please see the special ESR report on "Complying with the Fair
Credit Reporting Act in four Easy Steps."
Depending upon the position involved, an employer may also want to do a FEDERAL
criminal check. The federal court system is an entirely separate court system from the
state court. The difference between the two systems is a complicated subject. There can be
a great deal of overlap. However, the type of criminal records that most employers are
concerned about will normally occur at the state court level. Federal crime can be
offenses such as large scale drug cases, bank and financial fraud, or violations of
federal laws.
|
|
Criminal records are an important consideration for a number of reasons.
However, there are also some important limitations that employers need to know about:
- An employer may NOT ask about arrests or detentions that did not result in
a conviction
- An employer may only consider convictions or pending cases;
- There are certain limitations on misdemeanors, crimes that have been sealed or otherwise
expunged, or cases where a person participated in pre-trial diversion;
- An employer should automatically deny employment due to a criminal conviction, but
should consider the nature of the offense, whether it is job related, when it occurred and
what the person has done since.
For California employers, the various rules are found in the federal Fair Credit
Reporting Act, the California Labor Code, the California Civil Code, the rules of the Fair
Employment and Housing Commission contained n the California Code of Regulations, as well
as federal case law interpreting equal employment opportunity laws and decisions by the
federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Finally, it can be a form of discrimination to automatically bar employment to a person
solely because of a criminal record. The reason is that the use of criminal records may
unfairly result in the disproportionate screening out of certain groups. However, an
employer can deny employment if there is a sound business reason. The employer should take
into account the nature of the job and the scope of the duties, as well as factors about
the applicant such as age and time of the offense, seriousness and nature of the
violation, and efforts made at rehabilitation.
Often times, it is not the criminal record itself that disqualifies the applicant, but
rather the lack of honesty in the application process. Often ties, information honestly
disclosed in an interview may have no effect. But if a third party discovers the
information, the lack of honesty can be the reason for not wanting to give the applicant
the position. |