EmployeeScreenIQ Blog

We wondered in this very blog just a week ago if Yahoo! CEO, Scott Thompson could maintain his post at the company after it was discovered that he lied about his academic qualifications.  Thompson claimed to have a degree in Accounting and Computer Science from Stone Hill College.  While he did have the Accounting degree, the school didn’t even offer a Computer Science degree until after he graduated.

As if we didn’t all know the outcome of this story, the Wall Street Journal has confirmed that Thompson stepped down over the weekend.  And as we here more and more about the details, this is looking very George O’Leary-ean.  Who can forget the Notre Dame head coach who lasted about 5 days on the job until it was reported that he lied about his educational background?

Just like O’ Leary, Thompson got caught up in a lie he started much earlier in his career.  The representation that he earned that Computer Science degree might have helped him get a leg up early on.  But from there, it was his experience that carried the day.  However, once you tell the resume  lie, you can’t stop telling it when you become well-known.

It seems Thompson tried to cover up his lie by, what else, lying.  Last week, he blamed the executive recruiting firm that helped place him at PayPal for the oversight.  Whoops!  He got caught in that one too.  The firm didn’t actually place him at Yahoo!

And so ends a familiar tale.  Applicant lies to get the job.  Employer doesn’t take the steps to confirm the applicant’s resume.  Both end of looking famously stupid.

Got Background Checks?

P.S. Today it is being reported that Thompson stepped down because he is battling thyroid cancer.  Let’s hope for his sake that this is a lie as well.

Continue Reading



We just published The Verifier XXV, Spring 2012 Edition, an educational and information resource for human resource professionals or anyone interested in keeping abreast of recent employment screening and background check industry developments.

Highlights Include:

• Tips for Employers Based on 2012 EmployeeScreenIQ Trends Survey
• Recorded Briefing on New EEOC Guidance on the Use of Criminal Records in Employment
• Case Study: Lighthouse Academies Safeguards Scholars With Comprehensive Background Checks
• BTW: Your Background Screening Guide to Staying Out of Hot Water
• Sweeping Changes Massachusetts CORI Background Checks
• EmployeeScreenIQ Earns “World Class Customer Service” Distinction

View Complete Newsletter

For those interested in subscribing to The Verifier, please click on the “Subscribe” button below.

Also, we invite you to check out our latest video on how EmployeeScreenIQ streamlines the background screening process from setting up an account to ordering background checks to reporting.

Continue Reading

In the wake of the last round of publicity surrounding employers asking job applicants for Facebook passwords, the US Senate is now getting involved.  We have seen various State bills introduced in the past few months, a Federal bill would likely preempt any State effort.  Is this a good idea or bad idea?  In my opinion, its a waste of time.  Facebook has already come out harshly against the practice and so have many in the background screening industry.  In the end its a terrible hiring practice, bad for candidates, bad for the candidate experience and bad PR for any company that attempts it. Why is it a waste of time? I don’t really think many companies are doing it.  We have seen story after story but can’t really find much evidence that companies are actually doing it!  So it really begs the question, would we support actions forbidding it, YES, of course.  However, I think the US Senate has way more important things to concentrate on right now!

Senate introduces Password Protection Act of 2012

Concerned with what they believe is “the growing practice of employers requiring prospective or current employees to provide access to password-protected accounts as a condition for employment,” Senators Richard Blumenthal, D-CT; Chuck Schumer, D-NY; Ron Wyden, D-OR; Jeanne Shaheen, D-NH; and Amy Klobuchar, D-MN, introduced the Password Protection Act of 2012 (PPA).

A press release from Sen. Blumenthal stresses that the PPA, which would amend the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, prohibits an employer from “forcing prospective or current employees to provide access to their own private account as a condition of employment and … from discriminating or retaliating against a prospective or current employee because that employee refuses to provide access to a password-protected account.”

The PPA will not interfere with an employer’s domain to set policies for employer-operated computer systems or hold employees accountable for stealing data from their employers. However, the PPA does not allow employers to access private employee data under any circumstances, even if the employer uses its own computers to access that data.

More

Continue Reading



For those of you interested in keeping up with the latest in background screening compliance and the laws that affect your use of employments background checks, check out our latest publication, “BTW: Your Guide to Staying Out of Hot Water”. This compliance resource has been crafted by our VP of Compliance and General Counsel, Angela Bosworth and is a must-read for human resources and security professionals.

Our first issue is dedicated to the most recent guidelines issued by the EEOC.  We’ll endeavor to send out a new “BTW” once a month.

Check it out.

Continue Reading

Chalk this story up to something a background screening provider most likely will not do now or in the future: ethnicity testing.

Massachusetts Republican party leaders are calling for Harvard University to investigate faculty member and U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren for lying about her ethnicity.  Warren claimed that she was Native American which GOP leader Bob Maginn says is unsubstantiated.  And because he believes that she got her job with the university because of her ethnicity claims, he believes this is academic fraud.

Check out the full story reported by the Boston Herald.

State GOP big rips Liz claim, urges Harvard investigation

The head of the Massachusetts Republican Party yesterday demanded Harvard University investigate faculty member and U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren’s claim to be a Native American minority professor.

MassGOP Chairman Bob Maginn slammed Warren’s claim as baseless and mocked her statements in response to the controversy over the past week.

Maginn said Warren’s actions “appear to constitute academic fraud” and suggested Harvard consider disciplinary action.

“The problem is that Ms. Warren is not a Native American,” wrote Maginn, a Harvard alum. “She is Caucasian. Despite her insistence that she is an American Indian based upon ‘family lore’ and her observation that some in her family had ‘high cheekbones like all the Indians do,’ she has failed to produce a single shred of evidence to substantiate her claim.”

Maginn said Warren’s actions “potentially violate” Harvard’s academic standards and the university is obligated to probe the Democrat’s actions.

“By Harvard’s own Code and precedent, Ms. Warren’s actions require an investigation,” wrote Maginn.

Warren campaign officials referred to statements released last week by Harvard Law Professor Charles Fried, who sat on the panel that hired Warren in 1995, and former Harvard Law Dean Robert Clark.

Both defend Warren’s credentials as the primary reason she was hired. Clark denied her heritage was a factor.

Warren listed herself as a minority professor in the Association of American Law Schools desk book from 1986-95 while teaching at the universities of Texas and Pennsylvania.

Continue Reading

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

A Milwaukee woman recently had her employment terminated at a major bank after a background check turned up a shoplifting conviction from 1972.  Throw in the fact that the woman has not had a conviction since and worked for the bank for the last five years, and this story is bound to reflect poorly on her employer.

Like others will mostly likely conclude, my first reaction is that this isn’t right and it’s not fair.  I then thought about the negative publicity the bank will receive and the likelihood of litigation.

But before we throw this at the feet of the bank, think about what guided the bank and mandated the termination.  The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) mandates that participating banks cannot hire individuals that have committed crimes of theft or dishonesty, period.  No provisos. Failure to comply with these regulations would lead to sanctions and potential revocation of the bank’s charter. It is for this reason that I have intentionally not mentioned the bank’s name in this post.

The bank did the right thing according to the guidelines and they will be the ones to take it on the chin.  In this case, perhaps the federal guidelines need to be revisited.  And I’m not suggesting that convictions shouldn’t be considered.  They absolutely should.  But maybe the bank shouldn’t be obligated to terminate someone for 40 year old conviction when they haven’t committed a crime since and have been a productive member of society.

Continue Reading

By now, many of you might have heard that new Yahoo! CEO, Scott Thompson misrepresented his educational qualifications. But unlike some other high profile cases we’ve seen over the years (see Radio Shack CEO and MIT Dean of Admissions stories), Thompson didn’t say he had a graduate degree that he didn’t have.  He said that he graduated from Stonehill College with accounting and computer science.  Well, he did earn a degree in accounting, but the university didn’t offer a computer science degree in 1979 when he graduated: thus, no computer science degree.  As Homer Simpson would say, “DOH!”

How did this come to light? It seems like someone clearly had an ax to grind with Yahoo!  It’s being reported that the lie was uncovered by a hedge fund manager who is seeking more control over the company.

Does that excuse the lie?  Probably not.  But how many ways could this have come to life over the years the decades that Thompson has made this claim? You’d think an employer might have spotted it by conducting a standard background check, right?  That depends.  If all of his past employers conducted an education verification, this should have been an fairly easy catch.  I say fairly easy because there’s a bit of a caveat here.

If the University came back and indicated that Thompson had earned a degree as we said, perhaps the employer just assumed that if the accounting degree was earned, than surely the computer science degree was also earned.  And I could accept that for his earlier employment. However, when he became a major executive eBay and Paypal, you’d think this would have come to light.  Well, maybe it did.  Those two companies just reported his accounting degree on their SEC filings.  Do you think they knew about the resume lie and chose to move forward in spite of it?

And now to Yahoo!  Did they forget to do a background check? My guess is that they probably did, but they took Thompson’s word for his educational credentials.  I just don’t see any other way it was missed.

Is this a minor white lie or egregious fraud?  He might very well have used it to get a leg up early on in his career, however at this point in the game, the falsification did nothing for him whatsoever.  He was respected and established and his experience ran miles around the degree he never attained.

So now Yahoo! has a huge problem.  On one hand, this guy is probably the perfect candidate for the job. On the other, this lie has reflected poorly on the company.  Stay tuned.  His fate will probably be decided within the next couple days.

Continue Reading

I wanted to post a must-read article Rod Fliegel and Alex Frondorf from Littler Mendelson recently posted about the EEOC’s lawsuit against Kaplan Higher Education Corp. alleging that Kaplan violated their applicants’ Title VII rights by considering credit history information: “Do As I Say, Not As I Do:” EEOC Required to Provide Discovery of Its Employment Practices”. We are proud to know that this case is being defended by our attorney, Pam Devata from Seyfarth Shaw and from what we can draw from this article, she is doing a masterful job. Here are the high points of Kaplan’s efforts thus far.

EEOC’s Use of Credit Reports

• Kaplan pointed out that the EEOC conducts credit reports on their applicants and asked the district court to compel the EEOC to produce their guidelines on how they use these reports.
• The EEOC argued that their practices have nothing to do with this case and shouldn’t be considered.
• The district court sided with Kaplan and instructed the EEOC to produce their guidelines.

Identity of the People Whom They Are Suing on Behalf of

• The EEOC refused to share the names of the people they are suing on behalf of and Kaplan asked the district court to compel them to do so.
• This EEOC tactic is similar to the one they employed in the PeopleMark case, where it was later found that the employees at issue were actually hired.
• Again, the district court ruled in favor of Kaplan

Read the full article

House Keeping Note on the EEOC

Having had a week to digest the EEOC’s most recent guidance on the use of criminal records, it has given me some time to reflect on what the EEOC is doing and perhaps why.  Being able to step back and look at all sides here, I think it is important for me to turn down the rhetoric.

So here goes.  I am absolutely against all forms of discrimination wherever they exist.  I don’t believe anyone should be treated differently because of the color of their skin, their religion, their age, their sexual orientation, etc. That said, while I cannot speak for the entire marketplace, I suppose I am most frustrated because I believe that EmployeeScreenIQ and our clients are doing everything they can to ensure this doesn’t happen; be it disparate treatment or disparate impact.

And while I believe the EEOC mission is honorable, I am disappointed at times in the way they have acted over the last couple years. So here’s my promise.  No more incendiary posts questioning the EEOC or their commissioners in a way that I would not were I sitting across the table from them.  We’re going to continue pointing out what we think is wrong and advocate our positions with the same passion we always have (just nothing inflammatory).

Continue Reading

California has a reputation for being the leader in introducing new and perplexing legislation that can set the tone for over eager copy-cat legislatures in other states. It was one of the first states to pass a law allowing consumers to place a “freeze” on their credit reports.  And now, California SB 1384 (Simitian), “Consumer Reports: Security Freeze”, attempts to extend that right to other types of consumer reports.
Existing laws in most states now permit a consumer to place and to remove a security freeze on his or her credit reports with the major credit bureaus. Consumers can essentially put their credit file on lock down, usually in an attempt to avoid identity theft.  This new bill in California would authorize a consumer to place a security freeze on consumer report, potentially including background checks pulled for employment or renting housing. The proposed law would presumably extend to national tenant screening agencies, some employment screening entities, as well as other companies that maintain “consumer files” as defined in statute. The full implications of this bill are still under review, but we will keep you up-to-date as new information is available.

Continue Reading

In an interesting twist, late last week the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced the selection of former EEOC Commissioner Stuart Ishimaru to head a newly formed department, the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion (OMWI). The newly formed office is required by the Dodd-Frank Act to develop standards to promote diversity at both the CFPB and the entities it regulates. The specific charge of the office, by statute, is to develop standards for:
•    Equal employment opportunity and the racial, ethnic and gender diversity of the workforce and senior management of the agency;
•    Increased participation of minority-owned and women-owned businesses in the CFPB’s programs and contracts; and
•    Assessing the diversity policies and practices of the CFPB’s regulated entities.

Ishimaru’s appointment is of interest to many of us who have been tracking the EEOC’s recent actions to quickly pass several new and somewhat controversial initiatives.  It’s likely that the EEOC was acting quickly to bring those initiatives to a vote prior to Ishimaru’s departure, at a time when a 3-2 favorable vote would be most likely.  The most recent meeting held April 25 included passage of new guidance on the use of criminal history in employment decisions by a 4-1 margin, but was passed without hearing, prior public disclosure or comment period, unleashing strong criticism from the Wall Street Journal and the US Chamber of Commerce among others.

Ishimaru’s prior stints include serving in senior positions in the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, and the Commission on Civil Rights. President George W. Bush nominated Mr. Ishimaru to the EEOC in 2003. President Barack Obama named Mr. Ishimaru Acting Chairman of the Commission in January 2009 – a role he held until April 2010. A press release was issued April 30th, 2012, announcing Ishimaru’s appointment.

If you are one of the many entities under the supervision and/or enforcement authority of the CFPB, get ready for a new era of oversight—not only with the mechanics and supervision of consumer transactions, but also in assessing diversity policies and practices. While the full scope of Ishimaru’s new post is not clear, we do know that the Bureau has very broad rulemaking and enforcement authority, and we are standing by for more specifics on Ishimaru’s plan and priorities going forward. If the past is any indication, we will see an aggressive agenda from this new office.

Continue Reading