Florida DCF Reviewing Background Check Process After Spokeman Arrested for Child Pornography

It would seem that the Florida Department of Children & Families has a nightmare on their hands. They hired a spokesman for the organization that was recently arrested on Child Pornography charges, as documented by the Orlando Sentinal in their article DCF reviewing background check policy after spokesman's arrest.

The state agency said that a background check was conducted and did not reveal conviction records from the state of Texas which focused on writing bad checks. They said if they had known about these records, it might have affected their decision to hire this individual. My guess is that the state didn't conduct a thorough check, however it could have been much worse. Based on this report, it doesn't seem to indicate that this individual had prior records related to sex crimes or child pornography.

The importance of conducting a county criminal record search in each county where the applicant has lived, worked or attended school cannot be understated. The article doesn't indicate that these offenses occurred in counties where the individual resided, but I think it's a safe assumption. If he didn't the state would be claiming the they conducted a thorough check and wouldn't be reevaluating their procedures.

Medical Marijuana in the Workplace

In the past my articles have centered around industry issues and identity theft. I just came across this article on Yahoo and thought it was very interesting. I think this type of case could make it to the U.S. Supreme court as it could have ADA and possible EEOC implications. Obviously, drug screening and substance abuse testing in the workplace is a hot issue today and certainly a service offered by employeescreenIQ. My passion for this particular issue could be argued on both sides. I am a strong supporter for substance abuse testing in the workplace but also understand and support the Americans with Disabilities Act. I am not sure where this one will go, but it will be an interesting ride nonetheless.

Medical Marijuana users can be fired: California Supreme Court



By Adam Tanner Thu Jan 24, 6:14 PM ET

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Companies can fire employees who use marijuana for medical reasons even if California law allows such use because federal law prohibits it, the state's Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.

"Under California law, an employer may require preemployment drug tests and take illegal drug use into consideration in making employment decisions," Justice Kathryn Werdegar wrote.

More

Background Checks in the State of Connecticut

If your company conducts background checks on applicants in the state of Connecticut, state Substitute Senate Bill No. 1089 Public Act No. 07-243 affects you. Effective January 1, 2008 all Consumer Reporting Agencies (Background Screeners) must confirm criminal records found on those in the state of Connecticut (on a site provided by the state) before they can be reported to the employer. The CRA must also notify the subject of the report about the presence of the records being reported.

I am guessing that this is the state's way of slapping the hands of those that utilize commercial databases as the sole means of searching for criminal records and, or those that perform shoddy background checks. I come to this conclusion, because if you are performing on-site record searches and validating the records you find (the best practice method), this requirement is a redundant step. Because databases can contain arrest records, expunged records and can even reveal records that do not belong to the subject of a report unless the required authentication takes place an employer could be using information it should not be in the decision process.

To view the full version of this statute click on the link below:

Connecticut Substitute Senate Bill No. 1089 Public Act No. 07-243

FYI, the site that the state is supposed to be operating in was not up and running at the time of this post 1/14/08 (14 days after the law took affect).

Ohio Lawmakers Not Subject to Criminal Checks

If you live in the state of Ohio and want to be a dentist, veterinarian, marriage therapist, dietitian or an embalmer state lawmakers just passed House Bill 104 mandating a criminal background check. Seems like a good idea. However, the same lawmakers didn't think it was a good idea to subject themselves to the same requirement.

Check out "State lawmakers: No criminal checks on us" as published in yesterday's Columbus Dispatch. This would be a funny story if it weren't actually true.

Guidelines for Use of Employment Credit Reports in Ohio

As we've discussed a number of times in the past, there are a number of restrictions, recommendations, guidelines, etc. about how to use a credit report when making a hiring decision. We found these guidelines on the Ohio Civil Rights Newsletter from October. They are worth the read if you currently utilize or are considering utilizing credit reports for your hiring decisions in the state of Ohio. The following paragraph taken from the newsletter give you the gist:

In the light of the discriminatory impact on minority job applicants, employers should be extremely cautious in their use of consumer credit reports as a tool for screening job applicants. The policy guidance, as approved, makes clear that when an applicant is denied employment on the basis of his or her consumer credit report, the employer should have valid, objective proof--preferably in the form of a job validation study--that its use of these reports is not only related to the job in question, but also based upon a business necessity. More

Update on Ohio Senate Bill 197 Which Seeks to Expunge Felony Convictions

You might recall a couple recent posts where I respectfully disagreed with Ohio State Senator Shirley Smith's proposed legislation that would allow some serious felonies convictions to be expunged from individual's records. This was Senator Smith's way of addressing the issue of those with convictions being excluded from jobs and the increase in recidivism rates when employment cannot be found.

That is a serious issue and one that deserves proper consideration. However, as I said before, inhibiting potential employers' ability to make an informed decision is no way to address this problem. If such a measure was adopted, an employer that conducts background checks wouldn't see the expunged conviction.

I was scheduled to meet with Ohio State Senator Lance Mason last week to discuss our concerns about this bill last week and I was looking forward to blogging about some of the ideas I had already discussed with his staffers. Unfortunately, Senator Mason had to cancel the meeting (it was for a very good personal reason). We are going to reschedule, but rather than wait for the meeting, I thought it would be nice to share one of Senator Mason's remedies to this problem as relayed through his staffers.

Senator Mason believes that one such way to remedy the issue of re-entry into the workforce is to introduce tax credits to those that hire former convicts. I happen to believe that this idea has merit and am impressed with his ability to introduce a solution that serves all interests. I don't know how it would be paid for, but in concept it doesn't punish employers by keeping them in the dark about the people it hires and creates a way to get those who wish to enter the workforce after a criminal conviction to do so without having to lie on job applications or be fearful that past transgressions will automatically eliminate them from all employment opportunities.

This effort by Senator Smith is one we commonly see duplicated throughout the country. And in most cases, the intention is to make sure former convicts have a fair chance at assimilating back into their communities and can become productive memebers of society. These are honorable intentions. However, the ideas that Senator Mason has seem to strike a delicate balance of serving all parties involved.

Identity theft gets the wrong person arrested.

I found this story very interesting and a great tie-in for background checks.

CHARLOTTE, Tenn. - A Dickson County woman wanted by police turned out to be the real victim.

Police arrested Brandi King for allegedly failing to appear in Maury County court on a shoplifting charge.

More

Hiring a Celebrity: Don't Forget the Background Check

As posted on Xtra Cheezhead earlier this week.

Okay, so Michael Vick, former quarterback of the Atlanta Falcons sends you his resume to become your next Latex Salesman (I finally get to use a Seinfeld reference). Let’s say you have been living under a rock for the last few years and you don’t know who he is. You decide to conduct a background check. What will you find? That all depends on where you look. Up until last week, the only charges filed against Vick related to his involvement in a dog fighting ring were in Federal Court. He has pleaded guilty, so let’s say for the sake of argument that the Federal Court has appropriately updated their system. In order to find this conviction, you would have had to conduct a Federal District Criminal Search. A County Court Record Search would not identify this particular conviction. Now, separate charges have since been filed in Surrey County, VA. A conviction has not occurred so while you might be able to find the charges by performing a County Criminal Record Search in Surry County, you would just see a pending case. In most states you can use a pending case in the hiring decision. In some states, you cannot (another topic for another post).

The view the rest of this post, please click on the link below.
http://www.cheezhead.com/xtra/2007/10/01/celebrity-hires-provide-lessons-in-background-checks/

Update on Santa Cruz County California Clerk Strike

We are happy to announce that the clerk strike that we reported about yesterday in Santa Cruz County, California has been successfully resolved.

Clerks in Santa Cruz, California on Strike: Criminal Background Checks Delayed

We have just learned that the court clerks in Santa Cruz County, California have gone on strike. This will effectively block access to the criminal records index which can only be searched by a court clerk. If you require criminal background checks in this county, be prepared for delays. Hopefully, this issue can and will be resolved quickly.

Ohio Employers Beware: Proposed Senate Bill Would Hurt Employment Background Screening Efforts

As we reported in an entry from earlier this month, State Senator Shirley Smith of Ohio has proposed a piece of legislation that seeks to expunge or seal certain felonies off the records of those with convictions. This isn't the first time we've seen such proposed legislation, however in most cases the crimes the seek to seal are usually for one time offenders with non-violent convictions. And most of the time, these efforts are squashed when the ramifications are considered.

Well, this time Senator Smith has greater reaching goals. It is being reported in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, that her proposal includes expunging crimnal records including felonies such as manslaughter, reckless homicide, domestic violence, stalking and abduction. Does this really sound like a good idea? I think not. This bill would in essence clean the records of felons with such convictions and leave employers blindfolded when considering such candidates for jobs, posing them with potential threats to their employees, clients and their overall businesses. See article below.

Bill would give felons second chance

As both an employer in the state of Ohio and an employment screener, we are going to do something about this. We have already begun a letter writing campaign to our State Senators and Congressmen urging them to consider the consequences of this measure. We intend to rally the support of our clients who conduct background checks in the state of Ohio to do the same. We will reach out to relevant media outlets and advocate on behalf of all employers in the state of Ohio.

Interested in getting involved? Please email us at info@employeescreen.com

Employment Screening and Criminal Background Checks New York

I alluded to something called the Office of Court Administration (OCA) in a post earlier this week concerning criminal background checks in the state of New York. The OCA is a topic that affects any employer that wishes to conduct a background check in New York. It is especially abhorred by those that primarily hire in this area.

The OCA was established in July, 2003 as a way to consolidate court records from each of New York's Upper and Lower Courts. Many, including myself believe that the allure of doing so was to create a lucrative revenue stream. Upon it's creation 16 counties including the New York City burroughs disallowed access to their records, instead directing those seeking public records to the OCA. Further, the lower county and municiple courts shut off access as well.

What is the OCA good for? The OCA is a one-stop shop for a criminal background check. One search will give will every felony and misdemeanor conviction for the entire state. Furthermore, results are usually reported within 24 hours. You would think employers would be bowing to the state for creating such a system.

Here's the rub. The state decided to charge an access fee of $52.00 per name. Homer Simpson might say "DOH!". This is by far and away the largest access fee charged in the country for obtaining a public record and can make the process of employment screening cost prohibitive for some employers. And by the way, that's just the access fee. That doesn't cover the fee employers pay to the Consumer Reporting Agency (background checking company).

Is there a way around it? No. If your applicant has lived in one of the 16 counties that has completely shut off access, this is the only game in town. If the applicant has lived in a county that does not block access, they can do a felony-only search in that county's Upper Court. While this will produce felony records, misdemeanors cannot be identified without utilizing the OCA system.

Here's a list of OCA-only Counties:
Allegany
Bronx
Cayuga
Cortland
Delaware
Fulton
Hamilton
Kings
Montgomery
Nassau
New York
Orleans
Putnum
Queens
Richmond

Background Checks for Teachers Not Cutting It

I just put my daughter on the school bus to go to kindergarten for the very first time and I actually made it through without having to be restrained from accompanying her or from being put in a straight jacket. As I drove to work, I thought about all the people we as parents entrust our children to when they go to school. Teachers, school administration, the bus driver, maintainance workers, etc. Because I am in the business of employment screening, I am acutely aware of the substandard searches required by the states and executed by the schools. So obviously I was looking at an excuse to rail on the system as I have for some time now. Only now, it's very real to me and very personal.

Imagine my surprise (not!) when I saw this article where the State Auditor in Missouri says more thorough background checks need to be conducted. I am impressed that an employee in this state is actually admitting that there is a problem and trust me when I tell you that this problem exists in every state. They say that they've used the state mandated FBI Check and a Central Registry Child Abuse Search, but it's not enough. And they're 100% right. It's not enough for anyone working with children.

So why hasn't anyone done anything up to this point? Two reasons: enlightenment that the methods the state imposes is just one resource and does not constitute a thorough check. Secondly, and here's the big one: funding. Where will they get the money to conduct a thorough check? It seems to me that if a state can fund bridges and road construction, not to mention pork barrel spending attached to every bill, that surely they could find a budget that wouldn't cost more than $100 per school worker. Relatively speaking, the total annual spend would be a drop in the bucket.

Here's hoping someone takes action.

California Regulations on Background Checks Backfire for FedEx

For those outside the state of California, you might be surprised to learn that employers can only consider criminal convictions on an applicant's record that have taken place within the past seven years. The state enacted these laws to help those with past convictions on their records get on with their lives and to remove the potential barriers to employment. Seems like a pretty noble cause until you consider what has recently taken place at FedEx.

FedEx Fires Employee, An Unregistered Sex Offender

FedEx claims to have conducted a background check on an employee that had a forcible rape conviction on their record from 1978, and they probably did. The problem is that when they conducted the check, due to the California law, they weren't allowed to see the past conviction; and even if they were allowed to, they couldn't consider it. The employee made it even more difficult by failing to register as a convicted sex offender and FedEx only found out when authorities caught up with him for failing to do so. This has obviously created an embarrassing situation for FedEx and could have put them in hot water should something have happened.

If you ever read this blog, I know I'm going to sound like a broken record, but you have to trust employers with this information so that they can make an informed decision that insulates their employees, their customers and their business from negative incidents. I think that the state of California's inclination to wipe the slate clean on past convicts has merits, but it's got to be balanced with what can happen if you don't allow the information to be considered.

Don't Punish Employers: Criminal Background Checks are Vital Part of the Hiring Process

The Cleveland Plain Dealer recently pusblished a story, Ex-cons need jobs, but bill that would seal their records goes too far , which describes a State of Ohio Senator's efforts to have certain criminal records, including felonies wiped off convicts records so that they can find better jobs. I am not so delusional to think that this a one-sided story, but as an employment screener and a business owner I can't help but think that this solution just punishes employers and dilutes the deterrance of committing a crime. I wrote the following letter to the editor which was then cut down and published. Rather than give you the condensed published version, I thought I would post the un-edited version here.

I am deeply concerned about how a new piece of legislation proposed by State Senator Shirley Smith (Senate Bill 197), which would allow certain felonies to be expunged, will affect our state’s employers. As a both and employer in the state of Ohio and a professional employment screener, we are charged by corporations, large and small, with obtaining any existing criminal records on their job applicants. Obtaining this type of background is necessary because it allows a decision-maker to qualify their applicants. It also allows them to protect their company from the potential risks of hiring those who have a criminal past that would affect their ability to perform a specific job function. Failing to factor in a candidate’s criminal past represents a major liability to employers.

We see it every day — an employee commits a crime while at work that negatively affects a co-worker, customer or vendor. The crime victim files a lawsuit against the employer. It is then discovered the employer failed to perform an adequate background check and the jury rewards the defendant millions at the cost of the employer — this is in addition to the billions of dollars employers lose each year to internal theft. While the cost of a lawsuit or theft can be overcome, the negative publicity and loss of public confidence cannot.

The senator will argue that this measure will apply only to those certain felony offenses that she deems not to be harmful to employers. I contend that a felony conviction is a felony conviction, regardless of the crime and that if it wasn’t a serious crime, than it wouldn’t be prosecuted as a felony. How does this affect employers? If a record is expunged, then it ceases to exist on an individual’s criminal record. When a background check is conducted, that record cannot be found, therefore cannot be factored into an employer’s hiring decision. This leaves the employer twisting in the wind.

Employers are not unchecked when it comes to conducting background checks and acting on adverse information. They must consider the various attributes of the conviction and the individual that committed them; what type of crime was committed, how long ago did it take place, is the person a repeat offender, etc. It is not acceptable for employers to simply adopt a policy with no tolerance for past transgressions. Perhaps a small group of employers have done so and it is my recommendation that rather than hamstring our state’s employers with the inability to properly evaluate job applicants, that Senator Smith propose funds for educating employers on how to make proper hiring decisions and holding them accountable in the isolated incidents when they run afoul of the law.
Remember that a background check is an acceptable tool for determining a candidate’s qualifications and suitability for employment. There is a job out there for everyone including those with past transgressions. Just don’t inhibit the ability of employers to make an informed decision.

State of Georgia Mandates Verification of Work Status

Another day, another state passing a law that requires employers to verifiy their employee's work eligibility status. (Okay, this actually took place on June 29th, but I've been busy blogging about other topics) This time, the State of Georgia has enacted Senate Bill 529 that mandates that all businesses the contract with the state and have 500 or more employees must confirm their employees legal right to work status with the Social Security Administration or Department of Homeland Security (DHS)for residents of other countries who are legally permitted to work in this country.

In addition to enforcing federal immigration laws, the state feels that this measure will discourage those doing business with the state from human traffiking and taking state deductions for undocumented workers.

What I find interesting about this measure is that they only require this of those that employ over 500 employees. Why? Do they trust that small employers wouldn't hire illegals and are they just starting somewhere? Also, this should be an interesting test case for the state. What if these contractors now cannot find enough legal workers to complete the jobs the state has contracted for? Do they rescind this measure? Do they look for out-of-state contractors? Can they require out-of-state contractors to do the same? Will they eventually mandate this for all employers in the state of Georgia?

Who knows? We'll keep following this story and update you from time to time.

State of Arizona Set to Mandate Tougher Regs for Employment Eligibility

Some trends take longer than others. Take for instance beanie babies, bell bottom pants, swatch watches, or cabbage patch kids. These things took off like wild fire. For better or worse, it seemed like everyone couldn't wait to participate. Okay so maybe the trend for states to enforce employment eligibility laws isn't setting world records for speed, but Arizona is now set to be the second state to pass a law that puts teeth into the enforcement of only hiring legal U.S. citizens and it is believed that Georgia is close behind. Arizona house bill #2779 threatens to suspend the business license of first time offenders and even includes a "death penalty", permanent revocation of a business license for failing to verify work status on all employees. Of course, so far the state's efforts are only being bolstered with a $100,000 budget, but if these efforts actually do take shape, employers in the state of Arizona better take note, and fast!

I was recently speaking with an employment attorney about states adopting such laws for the enforcement of a federal statute and she questioned whether the state could actually adopt legislation that mandates the enforcement. It's a question I still haven't been able to answer but one that we should most definitely follow up on.

In the meantime, should this trend continue, it puts further onus on the employer to ensure that their employees are working legally in this country. It dictates that they must spend more time making sure that I-9 documentation is filled out correctly, that identification be scrutinized and that the employer confirm the employees eligibility status with the Social Security Administration. With the threat of the aforementioned sanctions, failure to do this could really hurt . . . now.