Tag Archives: State laws

Kentucky Bill Would Require Criminal Background Checks for All Private Nursing Home Employees

 By Thomas Ahearn, Employment Screening Resources (ESR) News Editor

Proposed legislation in the state of Kentucky would require criminal background checks for all private long-term care facility employees to help to protect elderly and vulnerable Kentucky nursing home residents from being preyed upon by dangerous criminals.

Senate Bill 44 – introduced by Senator Tom Buford (R-Jessamine) – would prohibit any Kentucky long-term care facility, nursing home, or an assisted living community from employing a person who had been convicted of a felony related to:

  • Theft;
  • Abuse or sale of illegal drugs;
  • Abuse, neglect, or exploitation of an adult; or 
  • A sexual crime.

Current Kentucky law requires criminal background checks for all employees at state-run facilities, but only requires criminal background checks for those employees who provide direct care to residents at privately run nursing homes and assisted-living facilities. S.B. 44 – which is currently under review by the Senate Judiciary Committee – would extend the criminal background checks to all employees at private nursing homes and assisted-living facilities.

As reported previously on ESR News, many states are penalizing nursing homes that employ workers with serious criminal records. Recently, an Indiana an operator of nursing homes was hit with $376,000 in penalties for employing individuals at nursing homes who either had been convicted of criminal offenses or stripped of their licenses.

To assist nursing homes and other long-term care facilities conduct safe hiring programs, Employment Screening Resources (ESR) – a leading provider of background checks accredited by The National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS) – offers a OIG/GSA Name Search which searches the OIG (Office of the Inspector General) Excluded List and GSA (General Services Administration) Sanctions Report for individuals and businesses excluded or sanctioned from participating in Medicare, Medicaid, and other Federally funded programs.

Employment Screening Resources ESR Home Health Care Check provides background screening services specializing in home health care workers in private homes or elder care facitlites. For more information, visit http://www.esrcheck.com/services/homehealthcare.php.

For more information on background checks, visit Employment Screening Resources at http://www.ESRcheck.com.

Founded in 1996 in the San Francisco area, Employment Screening Resources (ESR) wrote the book on background checks with ‘The Safe Hiring Manual’ by ESR founder and President Lester Rosen and is accredited by The National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS®) . To learn more about Employment Screening Resources, visit http://www.ESRcheck.com or contact Jared Callahan, ESR Director of Client Relations, at 415.898.0044 or jcallahan@ESRcheck.com.

Sources:

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/11RS/SB44.htm

http://www.prweb.com/releases/prwebkentucky-nursing-home/abuse-neglect-attorney/prweb5009674.htm

Controversy over Whether Employers Using Credit Reports for Employment Screening is Discriminatory Increases

By Lester Rosen, Employment Screening Resources (ESR) President & Thomas Ahearn, ESR News Editor

A great deal of misinformation about the basics of credit reports, background checks, and job hunting exists in the current economic climate. Most employers are not using credit reports to find ways to eliminate people from jobs. A background check that includes a credit report is usually run only after an employer has gone through the time, cost, and effort to find the right candidate. Employers initiate background checks because they are interested in hiring the applicant and are conducting due diligence to make sure there is no reason not to hire. Under the rules of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), a credit report is only obtained after the applicant has given consent and after a legally required disclosure has been given. If the employer utilizes the credit report in any way not to hire, applicants are entitled to a copy of their credit report, a pre-adverse action notice, as well as a statement of their rights. Before any employment decision becomes final, applicants also have the right to challenge the credit report before any denial of employment is made final.

However, employers should approach credit reports with caution when using them for employment background checks, and must articulate a clear rationale as to why a credit report is related to a particular job. Employers should also be aware of the potential for errors in credit reports. A debt may be reported incorrectly for various reasons or the applicant could be the victim of identify theft which can also lead to incorrect data. In addition, negative entries may well not be a valid predictor of job performance especially since many job applicants have faced a long period of unemployment that may lead to larger debts.  An overly broad use of credit reports by employers could lead to claims of discrimination from a disparate impact on protected groups such as Blacks and Latinos.

The idea that credit reports can be used in a discriminatory manner in the eyes of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) means employers will continue to face controversy with discrimination over using credit reports for employment screening.

This is Trend #1 in Employment Screening Resources (ESR) Fourth Annual ‘Top Ten Trends in Background Screening’ for 2011.

Credit checks for employment purposes have become a very controversial subject. Job applicants look for work in a tough economy are caught in a “Catch-22” situation where they have bad credit because they cannot get a job but cannot get a job because they have bad credit. As a result, the EEOC held a public Commission meeting in October 2010 to hear testimony on the growing use of credit histories of job applicants as selection criteria during employment background screening to see if the practice is discriminatory. At that meeting, a representative of the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) told the EEOC that the federal government should not eliminate an employer’s use of credit histories to help make decisions about job candidates since credit history is just one of many factors – including education, experience, references, and past criminal history – that employers use to narrow the job applicant pool to the most qualified. Data from a 2010 SHRM survey on the use of credit reports for employment screening revealed that:

  • 13 percent of employers surveyed conducted credit checks on all job candidates.
  • 40 percent of employers did not conduct any credit checks on job candidates.
  • 47 percent of employers considered credit history for candidates of selected jobs.
  • 91 percent of employers that conducted credit checks did so for jobs of financial or fiduciary responsibility such as handling cash, banking, and accounting.

Overall, SHRM found that 60 percent of employers ran a credit check on at least some applicants, an increase from the 42 percent in 2006 and 25 percent in 1998. The EEOC heard public comment from SHRM and others to determine the extent of the practice of using credit checks during the background screening of job candidates, the effectiveness of its intended purpose, and its potential impact on different populations. The EEOC works to ensure all U.S. workplaces are made free of all barriers to equal opportunity. For more information, visit http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/meetings/10-20-10/index.cfm.

For employers, hiring an applicant that will handle money or assets, make fiduciary decisions, or has access to private data without running a credit report could result in allegations of negligent hiring if embezzlement or identity theft occurs and a credit report as part of a background check would have lead to relevant information. It is an urban myth that employers receive credit scores of the applicant. Employment credit reports are much different than credit reports used for lending and do not contain a credit score since there is no evidence of a connection between credit scores and successful employment. 

In addition to the federal regulations of the FCRA and EEOC, some states are considering passing, or have passed, legislation to restrict the use of credit reports for employment purposes. For example, effective January 3, 2011, the State of Illinois restricts employers from using credit reports for employment purposes. Under Illinois House Bill 4658 ‘The Employee Credit Privacy Act,’ employers in Illinois may not use a person’s credit history to determine employment, recruiting, discharge, or compensation. As reported on ESR News, other examples of stories about limiting the use of credit reports for employment purposes include:

Employers argue that credit checks during employment screening are done responsibly, and are not barriers to employment. They may check credit history during background checks to help them determine whether a prospective employee is a possible risk to the financial health of a business or to its customers. Prohibiting credit checks in screening makes employers, other employees, and customers vulnerable to fraud and identity theft.

Unfortunately, personal financial health can be an indictor of potential employee fraud. The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) reviewed occupational fraud between 2006 and 2008, and found that the top two “red flag” warnings exhibited by perpetrators of fraud leading up to the crime were instances of living beyond their financial means (39 percent of cases) or experiencing financial difficulties (34 percent of cases). To learn more, visit http://www.acfe.com/occupational-fraud/occupational-fraud.asp.

While it is wrong to say all financial difficulties lead to fraud, some employers believe it is also wrong to undercut fraud prevention by outlawing the use of credit report information that may show a correlation between past behavior and future fraud. Credit checks of potential employees protect companies – particularly small businesses – from fraud. According to ACFE, the median loss suffered by organizations with fewer than 100 employees was $190,000 per incident, higher than median losses in large organizations. Overall, employee theft accounted for over $15 billion in losses annually, with companies losing a median of 5 percent of their annual revenue to employee fraud.

Because many myths surround credit reports and employment and to get to the bottom of how credit reports are really being used, Lester Rosen, founder and President of Employment Screening Resources (ESR), recently commented about credit reports of job applicants being used for employment purposes in a San Francisco area blog:

  • Employers don’t randomly access credit reports from all job applicants. They only do so for those who are solid candidates.
  • If they are pulling a credit report, congratulations! They are doing a background check, and that is good news, as they are seriously considering the applicant for the position. They won’t run it before the applicant is a finalist.
  • Credit reports aren’t checked for all occupations or industries. Most employers are looking at credit reports for people applying for positions that are clearly related to finance or have access to cash or credit. They usually don’t access credit reports for people applying for minimum wage jobs.
  • The only way an employer can pull an applicant’s credit report is with the applicant’s permission. Therefore, if the employer asks, the applicant should head over to the human resources department and explain his or her particular situation.
  • A potential boss does not have access to the same type of reports that lenders do. The credit reports employers can see never include credit scores or list dates of birth. All they can view is an applicant’s credit history.
  • If applicants are concerned about how these credit report pulls may harm their credit report further, they can relax. Unlike when a prospective creditor checks it, no “inquiry” will be listed.

As for the real impact of a job applicant’s credit damage, Rosen recommends in the blog that they should not worry about even that too much. “Our experience is that employers are very sensitive to the fact that credit reports are not perfect. And everyone in the world knows there is a recession, and employers take that into consideration,” says Rosen. “It’s a misconception that people are being blacklisted because of their credit reports. However, if the employer does make an adverse decision based on your report, you have a right to know about it and get a copy of the report they used.”

Another article quoted Rosen as saying employers are “looking at the debt level compared to the potential income from the job” and added that “if someone is under water financially as shown by the credit report, the thought is perhaps there could be a motive to embezzle or steal.” However, while Rosen says credit checks are one method employers may use to hire honest and trustworthy employees that also provide some legal cover if that employee turns out to be dishonest, he does not encourage routine credit checks on all candidates since credit checks often contain errors and can feel like an invasion of privacy to applicants. Rosen’s advice for employers is to limit credit checks to relevant positions such as those that involve money. In fact, with many states recently passing laws limiting the use of credit checks for employment purposes, employers need to be careful when, to whom, and how they perform credit checks on prospective job applicants.

However, job applicants and the EEOC are taking matters into their own hands regarding use of credit reports during background checks. Workplace discrimination charge filings with the federal agency nationwide rose to an unprecedented level of 99,922 during fiscal year 2010, according to an EEOC press release. In response to seeing an increase in claims of discrimination based upon criminal records and credit reports, the EEOC began the E-RACE (Eradicating Racism And Colorism from Employment) Initiative. Most recently, the EEOC filed a nationwide hiring discrimination lawsuit against a nationwide provider of postsecondary education charging the company engaged in a pattern of unlawful discrimination by refusing to hire a class of black job applicants nationwide by rejecting them based on their credit history, a practice that has an unlawful discriminatory impact because of race and is neither job-related nor justified by business necessity. As a result of these practices, the company has violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. To read the EEOC press release, visit http://eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/12-21-10a.cfm.

Another federal agency, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), issued a notice in May 2010 explaining ‘Credit Reports and Employment Background Checks’ to consumers who have applied for jobs. To see the FTC notice, visit http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre36.pdf. The FTC enforces the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), a law that protects the privacy and accuracy of the information in a credit report. The FCRA also spells out the rights of job applicants and the responsibilities of employers when using credit reports and other background check information to assess an application for employment. The FTC warns that there are legal consequences for employers who don’t comply with the FCRA if they:

  • Fail to get an applicant’s okay before getting a copy of their credit report or background check report;
  • Fail to provide the appropriate disclosures in a timely way; or
  • Fail to provide adverse action notices to unsuccessful job applicants.

To help both employers and job applicants better understand use of credit reports during background checks Rosen has written articles on using credit reports during background checks:

Employment Screening Resources (ESR) also co-authorized a white paper with LexisNexis, ‘The Use of Credit Reports in Employment Background Screening – An Overview for Job Applicants,’ on the protections applicants have for credit reports available at: http://www.napbs.com/files/public/Consumer_Education/Credit_Reports_for_Background_Screening.pdf

ESR also provides information – at no charge – to job applicants on background checks and credit check reports can help job applicants navigate the background check process and maximize their chance at employment. The information is available on the ESR ‘Applicant Resources’ page at: http://www.esrcheck.com/Applicant-Resources.php.

Whether the use of credit checks for employment purposes is discriminatory to certain job applicants – which ESR also named Trend #1 in its Third Annual Top Ten Trends in the Background Screening Industry for 2010 – is a question that will be asked as long as employers run credit checks on job applicants with money troubles. For more information about the use of credit reports during background checks, please visit http://www.esrcheck.com/wordpress/tag/credit-reports/.

To read an extended article – Is It Discriminatory For Employers To Use Credit Reports for Employment Screening? – on the subject, visit http://www.esrcheck.com/articles/Is-It-Discriminatory-for-Employers-to-Use-Credit-Reports-for-Employment-Screening.php.

Employment Screening Resources (ESR) is releasing the ESR Fourth Annual ‘Top Ten Trends in Pre-Employment Background Screening’ for 2011 throughout December. This is the First of the Top Ten Trends ESR will be tracking in 2011. To see an updated list of ESR’s ‘Top Ten Trends in Pre-Employment Background Screening’ for 2011, visit: http://www.esrcheck.com/Top-Ten-Trends-In-Background-Screening-2011.php.

Founded in 1996 in the San Francisco Bay area, Employment Screening Resources (ESR) is the company that wrote the book on background checks with ‘The Safe Hiring Manual’ by ESR founder and President Lester Rosen. Employment Screening Resources is accredited by The National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS®) Background Screening Credentialing Council (BSCC) for proving compliance with the Background Screening Agency Accreditation Program (BSAAP). ESR was the third U.S. background check firm to be ‘Safe Harbor’ Certified for data privacy protection. To learn more about ESR’s Leadership, Resources, and Solutions, visit http://www.ESRcheck.com or contact Jared Callahan, ESR Director of Client Relations, at 415.898.0044 or jcallahan@ESRcheck.com.

Florida Governor Signs Executive Order Requiring State Agencies to Use E-Verify

By Thomas Ahearn, Employment Screening Resources (ESR) News Editor

Shortly after being sworn-in, new Florida Governor Rick Scott signed Executive Order No. 11-02 (Verification of Employment Status) that requires state agencies to use the E-verify system to verify legal immigration status of workers and check whether all current and prospective agency employees are legally authorized to work in the United States.

E-Verify is a free, web-based system operated by the U.S. government that enables employers to electronically verify the employment eligibility of employees by comparing data on the Employment Eligibility Verification Form I-9 against records in Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Social Security Administration (SSA) databases.

As explained in the following excerpt from the executive order signed by the Governor, Executive Order No. 11-02 requires state agencies to use the E-Verify system to verify employment eligibility of state employees and contractors:

  • All agencies under the direction of the Governor to verify the employment eligibility of all current and prospective agency employees through the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s E-Verify system;
  • All agencies under the direction of the Governor to include, as a condition of all state contracts, an express requirement that contractors utilize the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s E-Verify system to verify the employment eligibility of: a.) all persons employed during the contract term by the contractor to perform employment duties within Florida; and b.) All persons (including subcontractors) assigned by the contractor to perform work pursuant to the contract with the state agency.
  • Agencies not under the direction of the Governor are encouraged to verify the employment eligibility of their current and prospective employees utilizing the E-Verify system, and to require contractors to utilize the E-Verify system to verify the employment eligibility of their employees and subcontractors.

However, as a sign that E-Verify is still not without controversy, Rhode Island’s new Governor Lincoln Chafee signed an Executive Order (also No. 11-02) ‘Terminating Illegal Immigration Control Order’ on his first day in office to rescind a previous order requiring the state and businesses to check the immigration backgrounds of workers using the electronic program E-Verify.

Florida employers that are contractors with state agencies should expect that Florida state agencies will soon take steps to:

  • Amend existing contracts to include the new E-Verify requirement, and
  • Ensure that the E-Verify requirement is part of future contracts.

Florida employers should investigate enrolling in E-Verify to ensure all employees with responsibility for Form I-9 maintenance and E-Verify administration undergo thorough training in Form I-9 and E-Verify compliance. Florida employers may also choose to have a Designated E-Verify Employer Agent help them maintain Form I-9 and E-Verify compliance.

Employment Screening Resources (ESR) – a leading provider of background checks accredited by National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS) – is a Designated E-Verify Employer Agent and can help employers virtually eliminate Form I-9 errors, improve the accuracy of their reporting, protect jobs for authorized workers, and help maintain a legal workforce.

For more information about E-Verify, visit http://www.esrcheck.com/formi9.php, read ESR News Blog posts tagged ‘E-verify’ at http://www.esrcheck.com/wordpress/tag/e-verify/, and see the E-Verify State Legislation Map is available on the ESR website at http://www.esrcheck.com/State-E-Verify-map.php.

Founded in 1996 in the San Francisco Bay area, Employment Screening Resources (ESR) is the company that wrote the book on background checks with ‘The Safe Hiring Manual’ by ESR founder and President Lester Rosen. Employment Screening Resources is accredited by The National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS®) Background Screening Credentialing Council (BSCC) for proving compliance with the Background Screening Agency Accreditation Program (BSAAP). ESR was the third U.S. background check firm to be ‘Safe Harbor’ Certified for data privacy protection. To learn more about ESR’s Leadership, Resources, and Solutions, visit http://www.ESRcheck.com.

Source:

http://www.flgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/scott.eo_.two_.pdf 

http://media2.wpri.com/_local/pdf_files/chafee-e-verify-executive-order.pdf

Background Check Industry Has Changed Much in Years from 2000 to 2010

By Thomas Ahearn, ESR News Editor

With the end of the year 2010 now upon us, the time seems right to look back at how much the background check industry has changed since the year 2000. In slightly over a decade, background checks have gone from a luxury to a necessity, from a primarily  government run endeavor to a substantial private sector business with a large number of firms providing service, and from a mostly expensive time and labor consuming task to, in some cases, a totally automated paperless solution.

Due in large part to the shocking terrorist attacks that unfolded on September 11, 2001 and led to increased security on all fronts in the United States, the background check industry has increasingly helped employers keep criminals, terrorists, and imposters out of their workplaces. Other factors behind the increased use of background checks include well publicized incidents of workplace violence, multi-million dollar negligent hiring verdicts, a sharp rise in cases of resume fraud including some well publicized examples of fake degrees, and a national awareness of the dangers to children and other vulnerable groups when unqualified or dangerous persons are allowed access to them.

Below are comparisons of background checks in 2000 and 2010 in six critical areas that have changed in the industry:

1. Number of employers performing background checks:

2. Industry standards for background checks:

Many changes have occurred with respect to background screening industry standards in the years between 2000 and 2010.

  • 2000: There is no national trade association, industry standards, or definitive publications on background screening. Steve Brownstein, Publisher of the Background Investigator, holds the first ever background check industry conferences in Long Beach, California and then larger events in Tampa, Florida. Employment Screening Resources (ESR) founder and President Lester Rosen is the keynote speaker at these first industry conferences.
  • 2003: As a result of the Tampa conferences, momentum builds for a professional trade association for the background screening industry. ESR President Lester Rosen serves as the chairperson of the steering committee that founded the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS®), a non-profit trade association representing the interests of background check companies, and serves as the first co-chair. NAPBS seeks to “…promote ethical business practices, promote compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act and foster awareness of issues related to consumer protection and privacy rights within the background screening industry. The Association provides relevant programs and training aimed at empowering members to better serve clients and to maintain standards of excellence in the background screening industry.”
  • 2004: ‘The Safe Hiring Manual – The Complete Guide to Keeping Criminals, Terrorists, and Imposters Out of Your Workplace’ by ESR President Lester Rosen is published, the first comprehensive book on employment screening.
  • 2010: NAPBS launches the Background Screening Agency Accreditation Program (BSAAP) for a singular background check industry standard representing a background check company’s commitment to excellence, accountability, and professionalism. The Background Screening Credentialing Council (BSCC) is the governing accreditation body that ensures background check organizations seeking accreditation meet or exceed a measurable standard of competence. To become accredited, a background check company must pass a rigorous audit of its policies and procedures as they relate to six critical areas of the BSAAP: Consumer Protection, Legal Compliance, Client Education, Product Standards, Service Standards, and General Business Practices.

3. Sources for background check information:

  • 2000: Background check information is mostly limited to traditional sources such as criminal records, driving records, verifications, and reference checks.
  • 2010: With the advent of new technology like the Internet in general – and new media such as blogs, videos on YouTube, and social networking sites like Facebook in particular – there are many more potential outlets from which employers may gather information about job applicants.

4. The need for international background checks:

  • 2000: Before the rise of outsourcing, much of the workforce is perceived to have lived, worked, and been educated inside of the United States, so the idea of international background checks for job applicants seems expensive and unnecessary to most companies. There are also limited resources available for such background checks.
  • 2010: According to recent U.S. government statistics, there are 38.5 million foreign-born U.S. residents representing 12.5 percent of the population, more than 1.1 million persons became Legal Permanent Residents (LPRs) of the United States in 2009, and the unauthorized immigrant population living in the U.S. reached an estimated 10.8 million in January 2009 and grew 27 percent between 2000 and 2009. Given these facts, U.S. companies must be prepared to perform international background checks on job applicants with global backgrounds. Numerous resources are now available for background screening firms to conduct international background checks, as well as resources concerning international privacy and data protection.

5. Compliance issues concerning background checks:

  • 2000: Background check companies must comply with the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), originally passed in 1970, that regulates the collection, dissemination, and use of consumer information and is enforced by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
  • 2010: Background screening has become an intensely legally regulated endeavor. Background check companies must comply with a myriad of industry regulations in addition to FCRA requirements such as the Fair And Accurate Credit Transaction Act (FACT Act) of 2003 (which amended the FCRA), Sarbanes-Oxley, the Patriot Act, E-Verify employment eligibility verification, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) discrimination issues against protected classes pertaining to the use of criminal records and credit reports for employment purposes, and new consumer data privacy protections regulations such as “Safe Harbor” and privacy laws that protect the Personally Identifiable Information (PII) of consumers. Another source of intense legal regulations are state laws regulating credit reports and criminal records. California, for example, completely revamped its background screening laws in 2002 and added new requirements in 2010 when PII is sent offshore beyond the protection of U.S. privacy laws. Many states have their own version of the FCRA. 

6. Technology used in background screening:

  • 2000: Most employers are required to fax orders to a background check firm. The idea of entering orders into an online system or making information available online is only in the beginning stages.
  • 2010: Technology in the background check industry has increased substantially, with the use of online processes to not only enter orders but to have paperless systems with electronic signatures and integration into Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS) so background checks can be ordered with the click of a mouse. With the advent of Web 2.0, employers may expect to see more advances in the technology for the background screening process. The downside, however, is that Internet entrepreneurs have seized upon background checks as a way to make quick money and in some instances are playing off the fears of Americans by offering cheap and instant checks that are based upon databases never intended to be a substitute for a background check. 

Much has changed in the background check industry in the years spanning 2000 to 2010.  Employment Screening Resources (ESR) – founded in 1996 in the San Francisco area – has kept pace with advancements in the many changes regarding background screening. ESR is recognized as:

  • An accredited background screening firm by the NAPBS,
  • The company that wrote the book on background checks with ‘The Safe Hiring Manual’ by founder Lester Rosen,
  • The third U.S. background check firm to be ‘Safe Harbor’ Certified for data privacy protection, and
  • One of the first background check firms to introduce an online system to place orders, view status of orders, and retrieve reports.   

To learn more about Employment Screening Resources in 2011, visit the ESR web site at http://www.ESRcheck.com or contact Jared Callahan, ESR Director of Client Relations, at 415.898.0044 or jcallahan@ESRcheck.com.

Happy New Year from Employment Screening Resources!

Court Decision Clarifies that a Bankruptcy can be Used as Part of Pre-Employment Background Check for Private Employers

A new decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has clarified the issue of whether a private employer can legally consider a job applicant’s bankruptcy under U.S bankruptcy law in making an employment decision. The Court ruled that when it comes to private employers, Congress intentionally only protected current employees from discrimination under bankruptcy law, and that job applicants were not protected. However, employers should still approach the use of bankruptcy records with great caution. Continue reading

ESR Background Screening Trend 8 for 2011: Increased Privacy Concerns Over Offshoring of Personally Identifiable Information (PII)

By Lester Rosen, Employment Screening Resources (ESR) President & Thomas Ahearn, ESR News Editor

Employment Screening Resources (ESR) Fourth Annual ‘Top Ten Trends in Pre-Employment Background Screening’ for 2011

Trend No. 8: Increased Privacy Concerns Over Offshoring of Personally Identifiable Information (PII)

A new background screening trend emerging in 2011 will be the increased concern over the “offshoring” of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) of U.S. consumers.

A recently signed California law appears to be the first in the United States to regulate the “offshoring” of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) of U.S. consumers collected for background checks, a controversial practice where private data of U.S. citizens – such as names, dates of birth, addresses, and Social Security numbers (SSNs) – is sent overseas, outside the United States and its territories, and beyond the reach of U.S. privacy laws.

In September 2010, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law California Senate Bill 909 (SB 909), which addresses the issue of personal information being sent offshore. SB 909 – which takes effect January 1, 2012 to allow time for background check firms to provide new releases to employers or modify online language – amends the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRA) that regulates background checks in California and requires that a consumer must be notified as part of a disclosure before the background check of the web address for “information about the investigative reporting agency’s privacy practices, including whether the consumer’s personal information will be sent outside the United States or its territories.” In addition:

  • If a background check company does not have a web site, then the background check company must provide the consumer with a phone number where the consumer can obtain the same information.
  • The background check company’s privacy policy must contain “information describing its privacy practices with respect to its preparation and processing of investigative consumer reports.”
  • Background check companies in California (and firms that do business in California) must have a statement in their privacy policy entitled “Personal Information Disclosure: United States or Overseas” that indicates whether the personal information will be transferred to third parties outside the United States or its territories through the process of offshoring.
  • “Third parties” are defined in SB-909 as including, “but not being limited to, a contractor, foreign affiliate, wholly owned entity, or an employee of the investigative consumer reporting agency” and also requires a “separate section that includes the name, mailing address, e-mail address, and telephone number of the investigative consumer reporting agency representatives who can assist a consumer with additional information regarding the investigative consumer reporting agency’s privacy practices or policies in the event of a compromise of his or her information.”
  • In the event a consumer is harmed by virtue of a background check company negligently sending data offshore, SB-909 provides for damages to the consumer.

The practice of offshoring – whether personal information or jobs – can have a negative impact on network security since, for all intents and purposes, once Personally Identifiable Information (PII) is sent offshore outside the U.S. it is beyond the reach and protection of U.S. laws in cases involving identity theft or privacy issues. As reported earlier on ESR News, other states besides California have data privacy laws in effect, in legislation, or have voiced concerns over data privacy. For example:

As for the definition of Personally Identifiable Information (PII), the following are often used for the express purpose of distinguishing individual identity, and thus are clearly PII under the definition used by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget:

  • Full name
  • Birthday
  • Birthplace
  • Social Security Number (SSN)
  • Vehicle registration plate
  • Driver’s license number
  • Credit card number
  • National identification number
  • IP ( Internet Protocol) address
  • Face, fingerprints, or handwriting
  • Digital identity
  • Genetic information

In addition, according to a 2009 security survey of 350 network administrators and IT executives executed by Amplitude Research and commissioned by VanDyke Software, offshoring of Information Technology (IT) jobs can lead to increases in data breaches. The survey more than two-thirds (69 percent) of respondents felt outsourcing technical jobs offshore had a negative impact on network security, and 61 percent of workers at companies outsourcing IT jobs said their company had experienced a data breach.

The security survey naturally raises questions as to the safety of offshoring Personally Identifiable Information (PII) of American job applicants in order to prepare background checks. ConcernedCRAs, a group of more than 120 Consumer Reporting Agencies (CRAs), opposes the practice of offshoring Personally Identifiable Information (PII) of U.S. citizens outside the country to be processed beyond U.S. privacy laws.

A member of ConcernedCRAs, Employment Screening Resources (ESR) does not offshore Personally Identifiable Information (PII) and all domestic background checks are performed exclusively in the United States. ESR does all processing and preparation in the U.S. in order to protect applicants and employers, the only exception being when performing an international verification using information residing outside the U.S. ESR was also the third U.S. background screening firm to become “Safe Harbor” Certified for data privacy protection. See: https://safeharbor.export.gov/companyinfo.aspx?id=9239.

Before selecting a U.S. background check firm, employers should determine if that firm is processing information outside of the country. The risk is significant, even if the offshore facility is wholly owned or a subsidiary of a U.S. firm. An employer needs to have a full understanding of how data and privacy is protected once it leaves the U.S., and what duty is owed to job applicants in terms of notice that their PII is being sent abroad.

To read more about ‘Offshoring’ and ‘Personally Identifiable Information’ on ESR News, visit articles tagged at http://www.esrcheck.com/wordpress/tag/offshoring/ and http://www.esrcheck.com/wordpress/tag/personally-identifiable-information/.

Employment Screening Resources (ESR) is releasing the ESR Fourth Annual ‘Top Ten Trends in Pre-Employment Background Screening’ for 2011 throughout December. This is the Eighth of the Top Ten Trends ESR will be tracking in 2011. To see an updated list of ESR’s ‘Top Ten Trends in Pre-Employment Background Screening’ for 2011, visit: http://www.esrcheck.com/Top-Ten-Trends-In-Background-Screening-2011.php.  

Founded in 1996 in the San Francisco Bay area, Employment Screening Resources (ESR) is the company that wrote the book on background checks with ‘The Safe Hiring Manual’ by ESR founder and President Lester Rosen. Employment Screening Resources is accredited by The National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS®) Background Screening Credentialing Council (BSCC) for proving compliance with the Background Screening Agency Accreditation Program (BSAAP). ESR was the third U.S. background check firm to be Safe Harbor’ Certified for data privacy protection. To learn more, visit http://www.ESRcheck.com or contact Jared Callahan, ESR Director of Client Relations, at 415.898.0044 or jcallahan@ESRcheck.com.

New CA Law Regulates Offshoring Personally Identifiable Information (PII) of Consumers Used in Background Checks

By Thomas Ahearn, ESR News Editor

A recently signed California law appears to be the first in the United States to regulate the “offshoring” of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) of U.S. consumers used during background checks – such as names, dates of birth, addresses, Social Security numbers (SSNs), and financial data – overseas and outside the U.S. and its territories.

In September 2010, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law California Senate Bill 909 (SB 909), which addresses the issue of personal information being sent offshore. SB 909 – which takes effect January 1, 2012 to allow time for background check companies to provide new releases to employers or modify online language – amends the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRA) that regulates background checks in California and requires that a consumer must be notified as part of a disclosure before the background check of the web address for “information about the investigative reporting agency’s privacy practices, including whether the consumer’s personal information will be sent outside the United States or its territories.”

If a background check company does not have a web site, then the background check company must provide the consumer with a phone number where the consumer can obtain the same information. In addition, the background check company’s privacy policy must contain “information describing its privacy practices with respect to its preparation and processing of investigative consumer reports.” Specifically, background check companies in California (and firms that do business in California) must have a statement in their privacy policy entitled “Personal Information Disclosure: United States or Overseas” that indicates whether the personal information will be transferred to third parties outside the United States or its territories through the process of offshoring.

SB-909 defines “third parties” as including, “but not being limited to, a contractor, foreign affiliate, wholly owned entity, or an employee of the investigative consumer reporting agency” and also requires a “separate section that includes the name, mailing address, e-mail address, and telephone number of the investigative consumer reporting agency representatives who can assist a consumer with additional information regarding the investigative consumer reporting agency’s privacy practices or policies in the event of a compromise of his or her information.” In the event a consumer is harmed by virtue of a background check company negligently sending data offshore, SB-909  provides for damages to the consumer.

As reported earlier on ESR News, the practice of offshoring – whether personal information or jobs – can have a negative impact on network security since, for all intents and purposes, once personal information is sent offshore outside the U.S. it is beyond the reach and protection of U.S. laws in cases involving identity theft or privacy issues. Also, offshoring of Information Technology (IT) jobs can lead to increases in data breaches.

According to a 2009 security survey of 350 network administrators and IT executives executed by Amplitude Research and commissioned by VanDyke Software, more than two-thirds (69 percent) of respondents felt outsourcing technical jobs offshore had a negative impact on network security while only 9 percent felt it had a positive impact. In addition, the security survey found:

  • 25 percent of respondents in the survey belonged to companies that outsourced IT jobs to other countries.
  • Of these outsourcing firms, about half said their security had been negatively impacted and 61 percent said their company had experienced a data breach.
  • In contrast, only 35 percent of companies not outsourcing reported a data breach.

The security survey naturally raises questions as to the safety of sending Personally Identifiable Information (PII) of American job applicants offshore in order to prepare background checks. A group of more than 120 Consumer Reporting Agencies (CRAs) called ConcernedCRAs opposes the practice of offshoring Personally Identifiable Information (PII) of U.S. citizens outside the country to be processed beyond U.S. privacy laws.

A member of ConcernedCRAs, Employment Screening Resources (ESR) does not offshore Personally Identifiable Information (PII) and all domestic background checks are performed exclusively in the United States. ESR does all processing and preparation in the U.S. in order to protect applicants and employers, the only exception being when performing an international verification using information residing outside the U.S.

To read more about offshoring on ESR News, visit articles tagged ‘offshoring’ at: http://www.esrcheck.com/wordpress/tag/offshoring/.

To read California Senate Bill 909, visit: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0901-0950/sb_909_bill_20100929_chaptered.pdf.

Founded in 1996 in the San Francisco Bay area, Employment Screening Resources (ESR) is the company that wrote the book on background checks with ‘The Safe Hiring Manual’ by ESR founder and President Lester Rosen. Employment Screening Resources is recognized by The National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS®) as Background Screening Credentialing Council (BSCC) Accredited for proving compliance with the Background Screening Agency Accreditation Program (BSAAP). For more information about Employment Screening Resources, visit http://www.ESRcheck.com or contact Jared Callahan, ESR Director of Client Relations and Business Development, at 415.898.0044 or jcallahan@ESRcheck.com.

Ohio Governor Issues Executive Order Prohibiting Use of Public Funds for Practice of Offshore Outsourcing Known as Offshoring

By Thomas Ahearn, ESR News Blog

Ohio Governor Ted Strickland has issued an executive order that prohibits the expenditure of public funds for services provided offshore and beyond the boundaries of the United States and its territories – a practice known as Offshore Outsourcing or “Offshoring” – a move that is a reaction to public outcry after a El Salvadoran call center was used for Ohio’s appliance rebate program, according to a report on Cleveland.com.

A press release on the Office of the Governor website at Governor.Ohio.gov reveals that the state’s Department of Development awarded a $357,300 contract to a Texas-based service provider in March 2010 to assist with the agency’s implementation of the $11 million federal stimulus-funded appliance rebate program which rewarded consumers with federal stimulus dollars when they bought energy-efficient appliances.

Despite state procurement requirements designed to restrict service providers from using public funds for offshore labor – in particular, an Ohio Department of Administrative Services (DAS) directive that requires agencies to ask potential vendors to list all locations where the services will be performed – the contract was awarded to a company that practiced “offshoring” and used offshore labor.

The company in Texas never told state officials in Ohio it would use a foreign call center, and the state did not require the information with bids. State officials learned about the call center from an Ohio resident who asked a call center employee where the operation was located, according to the press release.

“Ohio’s policy has been – and must continue to be – that public funds should not be spent on services provided offshore,” Strickland states in the Executive Order.  “Throughout my Administration, procurement procedures have been in place that restrict the purchase of offshore services.”

In June 2008, Strickland signed an executive order (E.O. 2008-12S) that implemented Think Ohio First practices promoting economic development by maximizing the use of Ohio businesses when agencies conduct purchases. 

The full text of the governor’s Executive Order 2010-09S “Banning the Expenditure of Public Funds for Offshore Services” appears in the press release:

  • 1. Ohio’s Economic Vitality Necessitates Constant Vigilance in State Job Creation Efforts.  State officials and employees must at all times remain passionately focused on initiatives that will create and retain jobs in the United States in general and in Ohio, in particular, and must do so especially during Ohio’s continuing efforts to recover from the recent global recession.
  • 2. No Public Funds Should be Spent on Services Provided Offshore.  Allowing public funds to pay for offshore services undermines economic development objectives and any such offshore services carry unacceptable quality and security risks. a. The Purchase of Offshore Services with Public Funds Undermines Economic Development and Other Job Creation and Retention Objectives.  The expenditure of public funds for services provided offshore deprives Ohioans and other Americans critical employment opportunities.  It also undermines efforts to attract businesses to Ohio and retain them in Ohio, initiatives in which the State has invested heavily. b. The Purchase of Offshore Services Has Unacceptable Business Consequences.   The use of offshore service providers could pose unacceptable data security, and thus privacy and identity theft risks.  There are pervasive service delivery problems with offshore providers, including dissatisfaction with the quality of their services and with the fact that services are being provided offshore.  It is difficult and expensive to detect illegal activity and contract violations and to pursue legal recourse for poor performance or data security violations.  The State’s use of offshore service providers ill-serves the people of Ohio who are the primary consumers of the services provided by the State.
  • 3. Ohio’s Policy Has Been – and Must Continue To Be – That Public Funds Should Not Be Spent on Services Provided Offshore. Throughout my Administration, procurement procedures have been in place that restrict the purchase of offshore services.  Despite these requirements, federal stimulus funds were recently used to purchase services from a domestic company which ultimately provided some of those services offshore.  This incident was unacceptable and has caused me, through this Order, to redouble my commitment to ensure that public funds are not expended for offshore services.
  • 4. Additional Steps Will Ensure that Public Funds Are Not Spent on Services Provided Offshore.  In order to ensure that the State of Ohio makes no expenditures for services provided offshore, I hereby order the following: a. No Cabinet Agency, Board or Commission (Executive Agency) shall enter into any contract which uses any funds within its control to purchase services which will be provided outside the United States.  This Order applies to all funds in the custody of an Executive Agency, be they from state, federal, philanthropic or private sources.  It applies to all purchases of service made directly by an Executive Agency and services provided by sub-contractors of those providing services purchased by an Executive Agency. b. This Executive Order will be personally provided, by the Director, Chair or other chief executive official of each Executive Agency, to the Chief Procurement Officer or other individual at that entity responsible for contracts for services. c. The Department of Administrative Services, through Ohio’s Chief Procurement Officer (OCPO), shall have in place, by August 31, 2010, procedures to ensure all of the following: i. All agency procurement officers, or the person with equivalent duties at each Executive Agency (APOs), have standard language in all Executive Agency contracts which: (a) Reflect this Order’s prohibition on the purchase of offshore services. (b) Require service providers or prospective service providers to: (i) Affirm that they understand and will abide by the requirements of this Order. (ii) Disclose the location(s) where all services will be performed by any contractor or subcontractor. (iii) Disclose the locations(s) where any state data associated with any of the services they are providing, or seek to provide, will be accessed, tested, maintained, backed-up or stored. (iv) Disclose any shift in the location of any services being provided by the contractor or any subcontractor. (v) Disclose the principal location of business for the contractor and all subcontractors who are supplying services to the state under the proposed contract. ii. All APOs are ensuring that all quotations, statements of work, and other such proposals for services affirm this Order’s prohibition on the purchase of offshore services and include all of this Order’s disclosure requirements. (a) Any such proposal for services lacking the affirmation and disclosure requirements of this Order will not be considered. (b) Any such proposal where the performance of services is proposed to be provided at a location outside the United States by the contractor or any sub-contractor, will not be considered. iii. All procurement manuals, directives, policies, and procedures reflect the requirements of this Order. iv. All APOs have adequate training which addresses the terms of this Order.
  • 5. Exceptions.  Nothing in this Order is intended to contradict any state or federal law.  In addition, this Order does not apply to: a. Services necessary to support the efforts of the Department of Development Global Markets Division to attract jobs and business to the State of Ohio, including incidental services for the support of trade missions, payment of international staff, and services necessary for the operation of international offices. b. Academic, instructional, educational, research or other services necessary to support the international missions of Ohio’s public colleges and universities.
  • 6. I signed this Executive Order on August 6, 2010 in Columbus, Ohio and it will not expire unless rescinded.                                    

            Ted Strickland, Governor

Banning the practice of offshoring where public funds are concerned – like the governor of Ohio issuing an executive order prohibiting use of public funds for outsourcing – may seem like a no brainer to many, but according to a blog on The Economic Populist the use of taxpayer dollars to offshore outsource jobs happens every day, from food stamp and unemployment support to large software design projects.

The Economic Populist blog also notes that as a result of the State awarding a stimulus contract to support the appliance rebate program to a contractor that practiced offshoring, workers in El Salvador were able to come into contact with the personal and sensitive financial data – also known as Personally Identifiable Information (PII) – of people from Ohio.

The controversial practice of “offshoring” has come to the attention of other states as well. As reported earlier on the ESR News Blog, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger recently signed into law California Senate Bill 909 (SB 909), which appears to be the first law in the nation that addresses the issue of personal information being sent offshore outside the United States or its territories.

SB 909 amends the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRA) that regulates background checks in California and requires that a consumer must be notified as part of a disclosure before the background check of the web address where a consumer “may find information about the investigative reporting agency’s privacy practices, including whether the consumer’s personal information will be sent outside the United States or its territories.”

While SB 909 does not prohibit offshoring when it comes to background checks, the law will require a disclosure in the privacy statement of the background check firm’s website, as well as a link to that privacy statement.

Employment Screening Resources (ESR) does not offshore information contained in background check reports and is a member of Concerned CRAs, a group of Consumer Reporting Agencies (CRAs) that oppose the practice of offshoring information of U.S. citizens outside the country.

For more information, visit the ESR News Blog articles tagged “offshoring” at http://www.esrcheck.com/wordpress/tag/offshoring/.

Employment Screening Resources (ESR) is the company that wrote the book on background checks with ‘The Safe Hiring Manual’ by ESR founder and President Lester Rosen. ESR is recognized as Background Screening Credentialing Council (BSCC) Accredited by the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS®) for proving compliance with the Background Screening Agency Accreditation Program (BSAAP). For more information about Employment Screening Resources, visit http://www.ESRcheck.com.

Sources:
http://governor.ohio.gov/Default.aspx?tabid=1753
http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2010/08/no_public_funds_for_outsourcin.html
http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/ohio-bans-use-public-funds-offshore-outsourcing
http://www.concernedcras.com/no_offshoring.htm
http://www.esrcheck.com/wordpress/2010/09/30/hot-off-the-press-new-california-law-on-background-checks-appears-to-be-first-law-in-u-s-to-regulate-offshoring-of-personal-data-overseas/

Bill Restricting New Jersey Employers from Requiring Employment Credit Checks on Job Applicants Moves Closer to Law

By Thomas Ahearn, ESR News Blog

A bill that would restrict employers in New Jersey from requiring credit checks as a condition of employment is advancing toward law, according to a news release from the Assembly Democrats web site.

Bill A-3238 – sponsored by Assemblyman Ruben J. Ramos Jr. and Assemblywoman Cleopatra Tucker – prohibits an employer in New Jersey from requiring a credit check on a current or prospective employee as a condition of employment, unless the employer is required to do so by law or reasonably believes an employee has engaged in a specific activity that is financial in nature and constitutes a violation of law.

Under the bill, credit checks would be allowed for:

  • A managerial position which involves setting the financial direction or control of the business;
  • A position which involves access to customers’, employees’, or employers’ personal belongings or financial information, other than information customarily provided in a retail transaction;
  • A position which involves a fiduciary responsibility to the employer, including, but not limited to, the authority to issue payments, transfer money or enter into contracts or involves leases of real property;
  • A position which provides an expense account for travel; or
  • A law enforcement officer for a law enforcement agency in this state.

The bill also prohibits an employer from requiring a prospective employee to waive or limit any protection granted under the bill as a condition of applying for or receiving an offer of employment.

In addition, the bill provides for the imposition of civil penalties in an amount not to exceed $5,000 for the first violation, and $10,000 for each subsequent violation, collectible by the Commissioner of Labor and Workforce Development.

As reported earlier on the ESR News Blog, credit checks for employment purposes have become a controversial subject as job seekers look for work in a tough economy are caught in a “Catch-22” situation where they have bad credit because they cannot get a job but cannot get a job because they have bad credit.

As a result, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the EEOC held a public Commission meeting on October 20 to hear testimony on the growing use of credit histories of job applicants as selection criteria during employment background screening to see if the practice is discriminatory in any way. More information on the EEOC meeting may be found at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/meetings/10-20-10/index.cfm.

For more information about employment credit checks, visit ESR News Blog section on ‘Credit Reports’ at http://www.esrcheck.com/wordpress/tag/credit-reports/.

Employment Screening Resources (ESR) is the company that wrote the book on background checks with ‘The Safe Hiring Manual’ by ESR founder and President Lester Rosen. ESR is recognized as Background Screening Credentialing Council (BSCC) Accredited by the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS®) for proving compliance with the Background Screening Agency Accreditation Program (BSAAP). For more information about Employment Screening Resources, visit http://www.ESRcheck.com.

Sources:
http://www.assemblydems.com/Article.asp?ArticleID=3252
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2010/Bills/A3500/3238_I1.HTM
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/10-20-10b.cfm
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/meetings/10-20-10/index.cfm

ESR NEWS ALERT: Massachusetts CORI Reform Law Prohibits Employers from Asking About Criminal Convictions on Initial Job Applications Effective November 4, 2010

By Thomas Ahearn, ESR News Blog

Starting November 4, 2010, employers in Massachusetts will no longer be able to ask about convictions on “initial” job applications because of new legislation that prohibits employers from asking questions on initial written job applications about criminal offender record information, which includes criminal charges, arrests, and incarceration.

As previously reported on the ESR News Blog, the new law overhauls the Commonwealth’s Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) law and contains several provisions that will affect the way employers use the criminal histories of prospective and current employees and impact Massachusetts employers performing criminal background checks on job applicants and employees.

While the new law does not prevent employers from obtaining criminal histories of job applicants or employees contained in the CORI database, under the CORI reform law those records will no longer contain:

  • Felony convictions closed for more than ten years, whether convictions occurred more than ten years ago or individuals were released more than ten years ago.
  • Misdemeanor convictions closed for more than five years.

In addition, the new law also includes the following provisions:

  • Employers that decide not to hire applicants or take adverse actions based on criminal histories in CORI reports must first give applicants copies of the reports.
  • Employers conducting five (5) or more criminal background checks per year must maintain a written criminal offender record information policy.
  • Employers are prohibited from maintaining CORI records of former employees or unsuccessful job applicants for more than seven years from the last date of employment or from the date of the decision not to hire the job applicant.

After the initial application of the CORI reform law provision which restricts questions by employers about criminal history on initial written job applications takes effect on November 4, 2010, employers that continue to ask questions on initial written applications about felony or misdemeanor convictions after that date may be subject to liability under the new law, experts warn.

For more information, visit Employment Screening Resources (ESR) at http://www.ESRcheck.com.

Employment Screening Resources (ESR) is the company that wrote the book on background checks with ‘The Safe Hiring Manual’ by ESR founder and President Lester Rosen. ESR is recognized as Background Screening Credentialing Council (BSCC) Accredited by the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS®) for proving compliance with the Background Screening Agency Accreditation Program (BSAAP). For more information about Employment Screening Resources, visit http://www.ESRcheck.com.

Sources:
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2010/Chapter256
http://www.esrcheck.com/wordpress/2010/10/05/new-massachusetts-cori-reform-law-prohibits-employers-from-asking-about-criminal-convictions-on-initial-job-applications-starting-november-4/