When it comes to many aspects of human resources, including background checks, the rules in the independent Republic of California are completely different then the other 49 states.  Background checks in California can present many traps for the unwary that simply assume that national forms and procedures will work in California.  This becomes a problem particularly for California employers that utilize out of state background firms.  Some businesses that are owned by an out of state company  that has a national contract for screening services can find themselves  potentially in violation of California law since the out of state screening firm may have insufficient knowledge of California laws.  The real problem: Under the California Investigative Consumer reporting Agencies Act, Section 1786.50, an employer can potentially liable for $10,000 per violation of California law.  Although there are no cases on that section, not understanding California law can cost an employer.

ESR President Lester Rosen had the opportunity of working with the California legislature 2002 and helped to draft the current California law regulating background checks. and to testify before the state legislature. 

Some of the  areas where California is different includes the certification form a client must sign, special wording on the first page of the background report, special wording that MUST be in the disclosure provided to the consumer, a special check-of box for a free report, a required Spanish version  form of rights that must be made available to all consumers if they object to the report, special procedures to assist consumers with questions, and a number of limitations on what can and cannot be reported.  An article about some of these requirements can be found at:  http://www.esrcheck.com/articles/AB655-California.php

 

 

ESR President Les Rosen will be presenting a webinar on May 1, 2009 on behalf of Intern Bridge called, “The Use of Search Engines and Social Networking Sites to Screen Candidates: Landmines and Pitfalls.”

Job applicants have long used the internet to research employers. But now, employers are using the internet to research job applicants as well. Employers aren’t only using search engines to find information on applicants but are now examining social networking sites, such as Facebook or MySpace. For job applicants of course, social networking sites are places to interact with peers in any manner they choose. Entries on these sites are typically not meant for employers to view. Employers tell anecdotes of avoiding serious mistakes by using these tools. Conversely, some job applicants feel they have been denied opportunities unfairly by employers or recruiters snooping on social Web sites and viewing materials out of context or Web entries meant just in fun for friends.

This interactive webinar will review this emerging area of recurring and employment law, examining the pros and cons of employers utilizing such tools and the legal landscape. Topics will cover how and why employers utilize these sites. It will then cover a number of legal implications, such as problems with employers obtaining information they should not have and privacy issues. Finally, we will examine approaches that employers and applicants may consider.

Intern Bridge is an expert at internships and is dedicated to creating exceptional new internships and improve existing internships throughout the nation.

For more information, see: http://www.internbridge.com/workshops/searchengines.htm

This is the first of a ten part series designed to alert employers of potential danger and hidden liabilities in their background checking processes. Each month ESR will examine a different area that can potentially put unsuspecting employers in hot water.

Some employers have assumed that all background firms are the same, so you may as well just select the cheapest. That is the same thing as saying you should pick a lawyer or any other provider of professional service just based upon price. The reality is that background screening is a knowledge-based professional service, and what your background firm does not know can cost an employer dearly in legal exposure and financial costs down the road if the employer makes a bad hiring decision.

There are ways for background firms to cut costs that leave employers vulnerable. For example, some firms use “at-home” operator networks to perform employment and education verifications. The advantages to the screening firm are numerous. The screening firm gets cheaper labor on-demand, without having to hire workers, provide office space or computers, or pay benefits, vacation time, or workers’ compensation. Since the cost of labor is one of a screening firm’s biggest costs, some firms see this as a way to lower their costs and to increase profits.

Unfortunately, this practice puts the employer at risk. Employers should very carefully consider the dangers of using a screening firm that utilizes a home-operator network for domestic verifications. Do you want your job applicant’s personal and private information spread out in living rooms, kitchen tables, and dorms across America? What about the lack of quality control and standards? In addition, there is an issue as to how at-home operators are trained and monitored for quality control. Employers are strongly advised to avoid the use of screening firms who are willing to sacrifice quality and privacy just to increase their profits at your expense.

Another area of concern is whether such home workers are properly classified. As a general rule, an employer cannot classify someone as an independent contractor when, in fact, they are essentially an employee. Many of the arrangements that involve home-based operator networks can raise significant issues if the home workers are improperly classified as independent contractors, while in fact they are providing a core service of the screening firm, working under the control and direction of the firm, and are not, in reality, an independent business. In addition, failure to ensure a safe working environment or to pay into a state’s workers’ compensation fund can further compound a difficult situation.

Employers should inquire of any screening firm whether they use a home operator network, or if all calls are conducted in the United States in a controlled call center environment.

ESR has released a press release today announcing the release of a professionally produced 36 minute video re-enactment of portions of a negligent hiring trial.

As the press release states,” The DVD of a negligent hiring trial, filmed in an actual courtroom, demonstrates opening statements, cross-examination of an HR professional, testimony from an expert witness, closing arguments, and jury instructions. The DVD includes re-enactment of a crime as caught on a surveillance camera. Part of the training process is for viewers to act as jurors and to deliberate in order to reach a “verdict” based upon the DVD. ”

The press release can be found at: http://www.prleap.com/pr/134931/

Employment Screening Resources (ESR) will be attending the annual meeting of the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS) in St. Louis in April, 2009.  ESR is proud to be a Founding Member of NAPBS.  ESR President Lester Rosen was the chairperson of the Steering committee that founded NAPBS and served as its first co-chair.  He also served as a chair of the NAPBS Education committee.  The first general meeting was in the spring of 2004, and 175 people attended.  NAPBS currently has 622 members.  ESR strongly recommends that employers only deal with screening firms that are members of NAPBS and have therefore shown a willingness to be part of a professional organization.