Tag Archives: The Safe Hiring Manual

California Supreme Court Case Demonstrates Difference Between Negligent Hiring and Direct Employer Vicarious Liability

A case decided by the California Supreme Court on June 23, 2011 graphically demonstrates the difference between allegations of negligent hiring as opposed to “vicarious” liability where an employer has direct responsibility for the acts of an employee. Continue reading

Ban the Box Coalition in Detroit Wants Criminal Convictions Question Removed for City Vendors and Contractors

A story in The Detroit News reports that members of the growing ‘Ban the Box’ Coalition, who persuaded the Detroit City Council to bar the question asking applicants about their criminal histories – and check a box if they have any convictions – from employment applications last year, have asked to extend the ban on inquiring about felony convictions on applications to city vendors and contractors. Continue reading

Ban the Box Movement Wants Question on Applications Asking Jobseekers about Criminal Pasts Removed

A Special Report on KTVU-TV Channel 2 News in San Francisco – ‘Ex-Felons Face Tough Road In Difficult Job Market’ – features a group pushing to “Ban the Box” that ex-offenders must check on job applications to disclose their criminal pasts to employers.

In the KTVU story, a truck driver – an ex-felon who served nine years in prison – believes the reason he cannot get an interview though he has applied for 80 jobs is because of the “Have you ever been convicted of a felony?” question on job applications and claims that disclosing his felony conviction gives employers an excuse to ignore him. Continue reading

New Case from New York Gives Potential Guidance on Issue of Which State Law Applies for Reporting Criminal Records

An ongoing issue for employers and background screening firms is the question of what law applies when a criminal record is found in one state impacts an employment decision in another state.  Since state reporting laws can vary widely, employers and screening firms are sometimes left without clear guidance if a criminal record can be reported or utilized because it is not clear which state law to apply. Continue reading

International Background checks

Did you know?  Given the mobility of workers across international borders, an employer’s obligation of due diligence may no longer be limited to employment screening just in the United States. A 2000 government study shows that 11.5 percent of the population consists of immigrants, and an increasing number of workers have spent part of their professional careers abroad.

Employers cannot assume that the U.S. government has conducted background checks on workers who hold visas. Government checks appear to be aimed at reviewing watch lists rather than verifying past employment or education or checking criminal records for employment purposes.

Given these issues, employers should consider background screening internationally for criminal records, employment history, and education credentials. Standard background checks conducted in the United States do not include international employment and criminal records. One caveat is that international checks typically take longer and are more costly than domestic screening, but they can be worth it if they help a company limit its exposure to future liability. Another issue is data and  privacy protection issues. 

For more information, see: http://www.esrcheck.com/international.php  ESR was the third U.S. background firm to be Safe Harbor certified for dealing with the European Union.  More information about international background checks is available in The Safe Hiring Manual.