ESR NEWS: Employment Screening Information for Employers

By Thomas Ahearn, ESR Staff Writer

It is not uncommon for employers these days to use pre-employment background checks to help them hire new employees. Recent surveys from the Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM) revealed approximately 75% of employers – three out of four – used background checks during their pre-employment screening of job applicants.

But what if the employer happens to be a professional franchise in the National Football League (NFL) and the job applicants are college football players? Along with statistics like touchdowns and tackles on the field, do NFL teams really care what football players do off the field?

Apparently they do – a lot – according to the New York Times NFL blog “Fifth Down,” which recently quoted a column from FootballOutsiders.com detailing the lack of privacy NFL draft prospects face, online and off, in today’s Internet-fueled, 24/7 sports world.

Every detail of a prospect’s background is researched by teams and publicized by the media. The scrutiny goes beyond touchdowns and dropped passes, it continues to arrests, scandals, and brief, long-ago suspensions for “undisclosed team violations.” If a player was involved in some non-noteworthy taproom scuffle, we know about it.

For NFL teams, selecting a player in the annual draft is the main process used to hire new employees. Like any prudent employer hoping to avoid wasting time and money on unfit workers, they look at the past experience qualifications or prospective employees, and perform background checks to ensure that they are making an informed hiring decision.

With millions of dollars on the line – the first overall selection in the 2010 draft, Sam Bradford of the St. Louis Rams, is projected to get $50 million in guaranteed money – NFL teams, like any prudent employer, use background checks before selecting future employees – in this case, college football players who hope to become professionals.

How prevalent have background checks become in helping NFL teams to decide what players to pick? Two sample ‘Draft Profiles’ on the NFL.com website show just how important:

• (NFL Draft Prospect A) will need a pretty in-depth background check by any team considering drafting him. He has had off the field issues at both the University of Virginia as well as at Marshall…
• (NFL Draft Prospect B) is a transfer from Florida who has struggled on and off the field because of injuries and conduct. He will require a strong background check by any team interested in gambling on his physical talent…

NFL teams conducting background checks on college football players is nothing new. A 2003 Los Angeles Times article reported that a former private investigator working for one team had done interviews and background checks on over 400 NFL draft prospects, while several other teams relied on former police officers and even a former director of the U.S. Secret Service to perform similar background checks. Other teams used background check reports that the NFL had compiled on prospects attending the league’s pre-draft combine.

Whether the employer is a pro football team or a small business, or the employee is a future gridiron all-star or a potential C-level executive, background checks help to ensure a safe work environment and to avoid the costs – in both time and money – of “bad hires.”

For more information about background checks, visit Employment Screening Resources (ESR), a national pre-employment screening provider, at http://www.esrcheck.com.

Sources:

http://articles.latimes.com/2003/apr/20/sports/sp-nfldraft20

http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/11/n-f-l-prospects-have-no-privacy-on-internet-and-neither-may-you/

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/walkthrough/2010/walkthrough-click-your-own-risk

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2010/profiles/darius-marshall?id=497186

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2010/profiles/nyan-boateng?id=497272

By Thomas Ahearn, ESR Staff Writer

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has signed a controversial law that would require police officers to question anyone that they have reason to believe may be in the country illegally, while also directing employers to keep verification records of employee work eligibility through the E-Verify electronic eligibility verification system and make it a felony crime for failing to use E-Verify.

As reported on AZCentral.com, the signing of Senate Bill 1070 into law has led to angry protests, threats of future legal challenges, and even criticism from President Barack Obama himself. The Arizona Senate had passed the bill a few days before the Governor had signed it. The law should go into effect in early May, according to AZCentral.com, 90 days after the current legislative session ends.

While the bill addresses a range of issues relating to illegal aliens and illegal immigration – including making it a crime for illegal immigrants to work or solicit work in Arizona and requiring Arizona law enforcement to make a reasonable attempt “when practicable” to determine the immigration status of a person if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is in the U.S. illegally – Senate Bill 1070 also:

• Directs employers to keep verification records of their employees’ work eligibility through E-Verify, and;
• Establishes a class 3 felony for failing to: a) verify employment eligibility through E-Verify or b) keep records of verifications.

Besides the strict new laws on E-Verify usage, Senate Bill 1070 also “stipulates that an employer is not entrapped in an investigation if the employer was predisposed to knowingly or intentionally employ an unauthorized alien and law enforcement officers or their agents merely provided the employer with an opportunity to do so” and “states that it is not entrapment for law enforcement officers or their agents merely to use a ruse or to conceal their identities.”

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) – an investigative branch of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the primary authority for enforcing immigration laws – has recently focused more on worksite audits of employee records, including the Employment Eligibility Verification form (“I-9 Form”), as a way to curb illegal immigration.  Employers can risk possible fines, penalties, and jail time if they do not comply with certain I-9/E-Verify regulations.

Employment Screening Resources (ESR), an authorized E-Verify Designated Agent, can assist employers in virtually eliminating SSA mismatch letters, improving the accuracy of wage and tax reporting, protecting jobs for authorized workers, and in maintaining a legal workforce. For more information about E-Verify, please visit http://www.esrcheck.com/formi9.php.

Sources:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/04/23/20100423arizona-immigration-law-passed.html

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/s.1070pshs.doc.htm

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

By Thomas Ahearn, ESR Staff Writer

As a recently filed lawsuit alleging one of the largest management consulting firms in the world conducted discriminatory background checks against African-Americans and Latinos shows, employers need to fully understand the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) policies regarding the use of background checks during the pre-employment screening process – or face the consequences in court.

Due to an increase in discrimination lawsuits such as this, the EEOC has decided to warn employers about background check practices that could get them in trouble. The agency designed a program to combat discriminatory practices tied to background checks called E-RACE (Eradicating Racism And Colorism from Employment) after recently noticing a steep climb in complaints from job applicants who claimed they were unfairly excluded from employment because of information – such as criminal records and poor credit ratings – that appeared on background checks. African-American and Hispanic males in particular, who according to statistics usually have higher arrest rates and lower credit scores than white males, were able to show the EEOC that the criteria used during background checks had a negative impact on their hiring opportunities.

The EEOC has defined two background check practices in particular that have caused – and will continue to cause – the largest legal risk for employers:

• Blanket policies against hiring anyone with a criminal record or poor credit score.
• Failing to show the correlation between background checks and the job itself.

According to the EEOC, even if the agency takes a discrimination charge that does not necessarily mean that the government is accusing an employer of discrimination. It is simply the EEOC’s job to investigate the matter to determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe that discrimination has occurred if applicants or workers charge that an employer has allegedly discriminated against them.

In addition, according to the “Employers” section of the EEOC website, the agency enforces Federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination that protect employees and job applicants against employment discrimination when it involves:

• Unfair treatment because of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.
• Harassment by managers, co-workers, or others in the workplace, because of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.
• Denial of a reasonable workplace accommodation that the employee needs because of religious beliefs or disability.
• Retaliation because the employee complained about job discrimination, or assisted with a job discrimination investigation or lawsuit.

The EEOC and the courts do recognize that some information uncovered in background checks does provide insight on an applicant’s suitability in certain fields of employment. These instances could include jobs in which applicants would have close contact with customers, handle cash, drive vehicles, and deal with minors.  Employers need to show these correlations between background checks and the suitability for the given job, and also ensure that their background check process does not routinely, even if unknowingly, give preference to white applicants while excluding African-Americans and Hispanics.

For more information about EEOC policies regarding discrimination during background checks for employment, visit Employment Screening Resources (ESR), a national pre-employment screening firm providing background checks, at http://www.esrcheck.com.

Source:

http://eeoc.gov/employers/index.cfm

http://eeoc.gov/laws/index.cfm

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/initiatives/e-race/index.cfm

By Thomas Ahearn, ESR Staff Writer

The Arizona senate has passed a controversial bill that – along with requiring law enforcement officers to question anyone that they have reason to believe might be in the country illegally – would direct employers to keep verification records of employee work eligibility through the government’s E-Verify electronic eligibility verification system and make it a felony crime for failing to verify employment eligibility with E-Verify.

According to a report on ABC15.com from Phoenix, AZ, Senate Bill 1070 now goes to Governor Jan Brewer, who can sign the bill into law or veto it and send it back to the legislature. Brewer has not yet taken a position on the measure championed by fellow Republicans.

While the bill addresses a range of issues relating to illegal aliens and illegal immigration, Senate Bill 1070 also calls for “Investigations of Employers” that, among other things:

•  Directs employers to keep verification records of their employees’ work eligibility through E-Verify, and;
• Establishes a class 3 felony for failing to: a) verify employment eligibility through E-Verify or b) keep records of verifications.

Besides the strict new laws on E-Verify usage, Senate Bill 1070 also “stipulates that an employer is not entrapped in an investigation if the employer was predisposed to knowingly or intentionally employ an unauthorized alien and law enforcement officers or their agents merely provided the employer with an opportunity to do so” and “states that it is not entrapment for law enforcement officers or their agents merely to use a ruse or to conceal their identities.”

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) – an investigative branch of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the primary authority for enforcing immigration laws – has recently focused more on worksite audits of employee records, including the Employment Eligibility Verification form (“I-9 Form”), as a way to curb illegal immigration.  Employers can risk possible fines, penalties, and jail time if they do not comply with certain I-9/E-Verify regulations.

Since the I-9 form is an important part of a comprehensive safe hiring strategy, employers using the E-Verify system maychoose a third-party provider to help maintain compliance. Employment Screening Resources (ESR), an authorized E-Verify Designated Agent, can assist employers in virtually eliminating SSA mismatch letters, improving the accuracy of wage and tax reporting, protecting jobs for authorized workers, and in maintaining a legal workforce. For more information about E-Verify, please visit http://www.esrcheck.com/formi9.php.

Sources:

http://www.abc15.com/content/news/phoenixmetro/central/story/Arizona-Senate-passes-controversial-immigration/VNapFEWhCUKmnwrI1RAh3Q.cspx

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/s.1070pshs.doc.htm

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

By Les Rosen, Employment Screening Resources

Lester Rosen, President of Employment Screening Resources (ESR), a leading international employment screening background check firm headquartered in the San Francisco area, will present a national webinar for a leading business information site on employment screening on Thursday, April 22, 2010 at 2:00 PM EST / 11:00 AM PST.

The webinar – How Social Media and Traditional Background Checks Trigger Privacy Lawsuits – is being presented by Business 21 Publishing, which provides multi-media corporate learning and employee training products. Participants in this 60-minute webinar will learn best practices to help screen employees thoroughly without violating the law.

In the webinar, Rosen – a nationally recognized expert on employment screening background checks – will address such topics as:

• The pros and cons of using social media internet sites such as Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter and how privacy and discrimination laws apply.
• What employers should do when they discover that a job candidate has a criminal record, a bad credit report or some other red flag.
• The Title VII implications of background checks and credit reports.
• The legal requirements under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and how state to state privacy laws also apply.
• The legal risks associated with “one button” automated background check systems.
• What applicants need to sign before and after the background check is complete.
• How employers should deal with independent contractors or temporary workers.
• Considerations when conducting International background checks.

“Hiring safe, qualified, and honest employees is mission critical for any business, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to help employers avoid the risks of a bad hire,” commented Rosen. “Recruiters and hiring managers also need to understand the potential liabilities that employers can face if employment screening is done incorrectly or unfairly as well.”

Mr. Rosen, who is also an attorney, is a writer and speaker on the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), pre-employment screening, and safe hiring issues. In addition, he is the author of the first comprehensive book on employment screening – “The Safe Hiring Manual: The Complete Guide to Keeping Criminals, Imposters, and Terrorists Out of Your Workplace” – and also wrote an additional guide on the subject called “The Safe Hiring Audit.”

Mr. Rosen’s speaking appearances have included numerous national and statewide conferences. He has testified in the California, Florida, and Arkansas Superior Court as an expert witness on issues surrounding safe hiring and due diligence. Mr. Rosen was also the chairperson of the steering committee that founded the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS), the professional trade organization for the screening industry, and served as the first co-chairman in 2004.

For more information about the webinar How Social Media and Traditional Background Checks Trigger Privacy Lawsuits, please visit: http://www.b21pubs.com/p-892-how-social-media-and-traditional-background-checks-trigger-privacy-lawsuits.aspx. More information about Employment Screening Resources (ESR) can be found at www.ESRcheck.com.

Source: http://www.b21pubs.com/p-892-how-social-media-and-traditional-background-checks-trigger-privacy-lawsuits.aspx

By Thomas Ahearn, ESR Staff Writer

In a story that shows the importance of using overlapping tools to do criminal background checks, a jury recently ruled that negligence by the Housing Authority in a North Carolina city led to an elderly woman’s death at the hands of her crack cocaine addicted neighbor in 2007.

A story on CharlotteObserver.com revealed that attorneys sued the agency on behalf of the 63-year-old woman’s estate after she was strangled in her apartment at a public housing complex for the elderly and disabled. Her 46-year-old neighbor – who reportedly had a history of violence, drugs, and mental illness – was later convicted of her killing.

Jurors awarded victim’s sons $132,000 over their claim of inadequate tenant screening after a background on the convicted killer missed several convictions for violent behavior in the man’s past. Jurors said they could not agree on a monetary amount, and the final figure was a compromise that was far less than the $10.4 million in damages the sons were asking for.

At issue in the trial was whether the Housing Authority properly screened the woman’s killer with a background check before it let him live in the apartment complex. The CharlotteObserver.com reported that the attorney for the woman’s estate argued that the Housing Authority violated its own procedures by doing only a North Carolina background check – not nationwide background check – on the woman’s eventual killer. The N.C. check missed violent crime and drug convictions in Maryland that would have prevented the man from living at the apartment complex.

The jury agreed, and CharlotteObserver.com quoted the foreman as saying that the just felt like the elderly woman’s murder could have been prevented with better background checks. The attorney also said he hoped the judgment would make the Housing Authority do more comprehensive background checks on tenants.

A tragic story such as this reminds employers – and landlords – of the importance of national multi-jurisdictional searches that can uncover criminal records that job applicants – or tenants – have in states other than the one in which they currently live and work.

Employment Screening Resources (ESR), a national pre-employment screening provider, offers a National Multi-Jurisdictional Criminal Database Search, which are comprehensive multi-jurisdictional and statewide searches that cover a much larger geographical area than traditional county-level searches. Such a search can provide potential leads as to other places to search.

However, ESR believes that since these databases have both pros and cons, it is critical to understand that:

• Multi-jurisdictional database are NOT official FBI database searches.  FBI records are only available to certain employers or industries where Congress or a state has granted access.
• Multi-jurisdictional and statewide databases searches are a research tool only and are not a substitute for a hands-on search at the county level under any circumstances.
• Not all states have databases that are available to employers.  In some instances, the databases that are available have limited information.  Therefore the value of these searches in these states may be very limited.   
• Some states that make official state police records or records directly form the court available.  However, the information may not be reportable under state or federal la for various reasons. 
• Databases in each state are compiled from a number of sources and the information may not be accurate or complete.  Because of the nature of databases, the appearance of a person’s name on a database is not an indication the person is criminal any more than the absence of a name shows he/she is not a criminal. Any positive match MUST be verified by reviewing the actual court records.  Any lack of a match is not the same as a person being “cleared.”

More information on the pros and cons of multi-jurisdictional and statewide databases – including what information this search is based on, how criminal record “hits” should be reconfirmed to ensure accuracy, and how Sex Offender databases are derived from the state-maintained registry, is available on ESRCheck.com at:

• http://www.esrcheck.com/multijurisdictionalsearch.php
• http://www.esrcheck.com/database_issues.php

Source: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/02/10/1236243/jury-finds-housing-authority-negligent.html

By Thomas Ahearn, ESR Staff Writer

A recently filed class action lawsuit – which alleges that one of the largest management consulting firms in the world conducted background checks that discriminated against African-Americans and Latinos – underscores the importance of employers understanding the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) policy regarding the use of criminal records during the pre-employment background check process.

According to a story on CNNMoney.com, the lawsuit accuses the firm of violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by rejecting or firing qualified individuals who have criminal records even when the criminal history has no bearing on the individual’s fitness or ability to perform the job in question. CNNMoney.com reports that the lawsuit alleges the plaintiff had worked as a contract employee for more than a year when, in April 2007, the firm offered him permanent employment. This job offer was then withdrawn – and the plaintiff’s employment as a contract worker terminated – after the results of a background check revealed that he had been convicted of vehicular homicide after driving while intoxicated a decade earlier.

The worker filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC in November 2007 and the EEOC issued a “right to sue” letter to him on January 2010. The lawsuit, according to CNNMoney.com, seeks to force changes in the management consulting firm’s hiring and retention policies, practices, and programs, restore the worker and others like him to their positions at the company, front and/or back pay and benefits, and litigation costs.

Leading national online background check firm Employment Screening Resources (ESR) targeted the use of criminal reports in its recently released third annual “Top Ten Trends in the Pre-Employment Background Screening Industry for 2010” that identifies new trends making a difference – such as attorneys, including class action lawyers, focusing more on background checks – and old trends evolving as the screening industry matures.

The first of the “Top 10 Trends” ESR will track closely in 2010 concerns the increased focus on whether both credit reports and criminal records promote discrimination. In October 2009, the EEOC filed a lawsuit against a national employer alleging that credit reports and criminal records were being used to discriminate against members of protected groups.

These recent actions should not come as much of a surprise to the background check industry, according to ESR, as there has been a steady drumbeat of concern about both credit reports and criminal records.  While the use of credit reports during background checks has been in the headlines recently due to the damage the economic downturn has done to the credit rating and finances of many job applicants, the use of criminal records during background checks is also coming under closer scrutiny. In 2009, New York passed new laws to ensure that employers were not automatically rejecting applicants with criminal records without considering the individual on their merits. 

ESR believe this lawsuit clearly shows why employers should be familiar with discrimination and the critical “No Automatic Disqualification Rule”  when it comes to the use of criminal records during background checks. This rule states that employers cannot deny employment automatically but need a business justification not to hire based upon criminal records. 

The EEOC has made it clear the automatic use of a criminal record without showing a “business necessity” can have discriminatory impact by disqualifying a disproportionate number of members of minority groups.  The EEOC’s position when it comes to the use of criminal records: “an employer’s policy or practice of excluding from employment on the basis of their conviction records has an adverse impact on Blacks and Hispanics in light of statistics showing that they are convicted at a rate disproportionately greater than their representation in the population. Consequently, the Commission has held and continues to hold that such a policy or practice is unlawful under Title VII (the Equal Employment Opportunity law) in the absence of a justifying business necessity.”

According to the EEOC, employers must show that it considered these three factors to determine whether its decision was justified by business necessity:

• The nature and gravity of the offense or offenses;
• The time that has passed since the conviction and/or completion of the sentence, and;
• The nature of the job held or sought.

In other words, employers cannot simply follow a “No one with a criminal record need apply” strategy that statistically could end up having an unfair or discriminatory impact on certain groups of people. Instead, if an applicant has a criminal record, ESR suggests that the employer determine if there is a rational, job-related reason why that person is unfit for that job.  Employer must show that the consideration of the applicant’s criminal record is job-related and consistent with business necessity.

One area ESR think employers need to review their practices is with regards to using automated “pass/fail” scoring matrixes where job candidates are given a green (pass) light or red (fail) light.  That sort of automation where individuals are judged entirety by their membership in a particular category instead of their personal abilities is precisely the type of process that is likely to get some unwarranted attention in the courts as a discriminatory practice.  This practice presents dangers to employers – both large and small – and they should not be engaging in automated decision making based on background checks. The final say should be left in the hands of human beings.

As a general rule, ESR believes it is a best practice for employers to have written policies on important issues such as possible discrimination through the use of criminal records during background checks. Without such a policy, an employer’s actions in denying employment may become harder to defend, and having no policy also subjects an employer to claims of a discriminatory practice.

Sources:

http://www.esrcheck.com/2010-trends-backgroundscreening-industry.php                                                                        

http://www.esrcheck.com/wordpress/1057/new-eeoc-lawsuit-for-discrimination-based-on-credit-report-and-criminal-records

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/prnewswire/DA83387.htm

By Thomas Ahearn, ESR Staff Writer

According to popular TV crime dramas, today’s investigators – along with old fashioned gut instincts – use all technology at their disposal when it comes to tracking down and arresting the bad guys. One such technological advantage is a centrally located national computer database containing all past criminal records of anyone who ever killed, stole, drove drunk, or even jaywalked. Best of all, these super crime databases are never, ever wrong.

However, the reality is quite different say experts in employment screening, and also recent headlines. The potential for errors in crime databases was evident in the case of a Maryland woman who lost her job after a background check performed through the FBI’s National Criminal Information Center (NCIC) indicated that she was unsuitable to work on the contract her company had won to handle mail for the Social Security Administration (SSA).

According to the Baltimore Sun, when the SSA performed a routine background check on the woman in July 2009 for low-level security clearance, the results showed she was “unsuitable” to work on the contract. The subsequent SSA letter to her employer did not specify what the background check had uncovered. The employer fired the woman rather than keep her off the contract.

The woman maintained that she had no criminal history, a claim backed by the Baltimore Sun, which only uncovered a civil case possibly involving a suit against her late father’s estate, and also by the SSA itself, which sent a letter to her employer saying as much. The SSA letter said the woman had passed a pre-screening check and could work on the SSA contract pending a final determination. Instead of reinstating her, the woman’s former company told her to re-apply for her job, then that the department was reorganizing, and later that it had no intention of restoring her old position.

The Baltimore Sun reported that the woman has since learned that an unspecified error in the FBI’s NCIC database – a repository for criminal records and information on fugitives, stolen property and missing persons fed to the database from local, state. and federal law-enforcement agencies around the country – was the cause for the SSA’s initial determination that she was “unsuitable.”

“Although the NCIC data is the closet thing that exists to a national criminal database, it is not nearly as complete as portrayed in the movies,” stated Les Rosen, Founder and President of Employment Screening Resources (ESR), a nationwide pre-employment screening company. “Many records of crime do not make it into the system because of the chain of events that must happen in multiple jurisdictions in order for a crime to appear in NCIC.” 

According to Rosen, author of The Safe Hiring Manual: How To Keep Criminals, Terrorists, and Imposters Out of Your Workplace, employers cannot even access the NCIC unless they are specifically authorized to by law.  There are over 10,000 state and federal courthouses in the United States spread out over some 3,300 jurisdictions, each with its own records file. “Contrary to popular belief, there is actually no central location for all U.S. criminal records,” says Rosen. “There is simply no national computer database of all criminal records available to private employers.”

A 2005 report sponsored by  the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS), of which Rosen is a past co-chair, reviewed the National Crime Information Center and the Interstate Identification System in order to evaluate its effectiveness in maintaining accurate and complete criminal history records.

Some conclusions from the NAPBS sponsored study were:

• Many states do not report information concerning dispositions, declinations to prosecute, failure to charge after fingerprints have been submitted, and expungements.
• Inconsistency in the various states’ reporting requirements and criminal codes impacts the completeness and accuracy of the records.
• The timeliness of transmission by the local jurisdictions to the state criminal history repositories remains problematic.
• There are still significant time lags between the time information is transmitted to the state repository and entry into the criminal history records.
• The process used to linking data to the proper individual and case is still ineffective.
• Serious problems remain in the process to link dispositional information to the proper case and charge.
• The format and terminology used by the various states creates problems of interpretation for individuals in other states who are using the information.
• Even when a criminal record is searched based fingerprints instead of name matches, many of the same issues still exist.

 As the case of the Maryland woman fired from her job due to an “unspecified error” in the NCIC shows, the FBI database – while still the gold standard for those limited employers authorized by state or federal law to access it – is still more of an arrest databases that is not as accurate or complete as people think.

Sources:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/10/ncic#ixzz0kRkIWEnd

http://www.justice.gov/olp/pdf/ncicreportaugust32005.pdf (Contains letter to the Department of Justice by Employment Screening Resources  on FBI records as well as report sponosred by NAPBS)

http://www.justice.gov/olp/ag_bgchecks_report.pdf (DOJ report on FBI criminal records database and criminal background checks)