0

The Catholic Church is no stranger to controversy, especially when it comes to background screening.  For years the public demanded better screening of Priests and other congregant workers.   These demands and other public pressures is likely why they adopted a policy a few years back.  However, as we can see here, when Ms. Collins was hired in June 2003, background checks were not common practice in the church.  Like we always say, money is easy(ier) to recover than ones reputation.   Careless oversight and lack screening policies have led them to where they are today.  As you will read later in the article, a simple criminal records check on Ms. Collins would have revealed a past recrod; According to court records, Ms. Collins was arrested in June 1999, and charged with stealing at least $46,000 over 16 months from AccuStaff, a Manhattan temporary employment agency where she worked as a payroll manager.

In Million-Dollar Theft Case, Church Worker With a Secret Past

For eight years, the woman worked in accounts payable for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York, gaining the trust of her superiors.
Colleagues praised her quiet dedication and hard work, and noted that she prayed often; her volunteer work at an event at St. Patrick’s Cathedral won mention in the church’s newspaper, Catholic New York. No one, then, questioned the hundreds of checks she wrote at the archdiocese to cover small expenses, like office supplies and utility bills.
On Monday, the woman, Anita Collins, 67, was charged with embezzling more than $1 million over seven years from the archdiocese.
Prosecutors in Manhattan said she did not live lavishly. But at her modest home in the Throgs Neck section of the Bronx, a particular interest of Ms. Collins’s became apparent: expensive dolls.
Detectives emerged from her three-bedroom apartment on Monday carrying boxes filled with personal effects: 17 or 18 were labeled dolls, many from the Madame Alexander catalog; about three more were labeled bears. And when a postal service carrier walked by, she noted the volume of mail and packages that the family received.
“They get packages like no tomorrow,” she said.
Joseph Zwilling, a spokesman for the archdiocese, said Ms. Collins was confronted about the missing money in December after an annual audit raised red flags. She was fired, and the archdiocese referred the matter to the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr.
When Ms. Collins was hired by the archdiocese in June 2003, it did not perform criminal background checks on prospective employees, as it does now, Mr. Zwilling said. So church officials were unaware until recently that she had been convicted of grand larceny in one case and had pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in another.
Mr. Zwilling said the scheme diverted money “designated for the purpose of helping to provide Catholic education.” The archdiocese has been closing churches and schools for lack of money, and asking for more than $15 million in an annual charity appeal.
“We are continually reviewing how money is handled, our financial controls,” Mr. Zwilling said, “because we want to be good stewards of the money entrusted to us.”
Prosecutors said Ms. Collins had issued 468 checks from the archdiocese to “KB Collins,” the initials of one of her sons. After each check was printed, she would change internal records to show that the check had been issued to a legitimate vendor, prosecutors said.
“At first, we thought it was only a handful of checks, but we quickly realized that it was much bigger,” Mr. Zwilling said.
She kept the amounts to less than $2,500 each to avoid the approval of a supervisor required for larger checks, a prosecutor, Amy Justiniano, said during Ms. Collins’s arraignment.
Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • MySpace
  • NewsVine
  • Ping.fm
  • Reddit
  • Scoopeo
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
Share This Post

Continue Reading

0
Dibyendu Malakar needed a graduate business degree to advance his career, but he was working full time and could not afford $100,000 or more for a two-year M.B.A. program at Berkeley, Stanford or another accredited business school. So Malakar enrolled at Frederick Taylor University, an unaccredited school in Moraga.
Because Frederick Taylor is listed in California as a state-approved school, he said, “I thought, ‘It can’t be completely bogus.’” In fact, he got his M.B.A. via the Internet in just a year, for less than $5,000.
That may not have been quite the bargain it seemed to be, though. “I did not realize that it did not carry the same weight as Berkeley or Stanford,” said Malakar, who emigrated from India. “But it was not a complete waste.” Malakar said his M.B.A. helped him get a job as director of product management at a software company in Cupertino.
Shakila Marando, a 33-year-old doula from El Cerrito, is seeking a bachelor’s degree in management from Frederick Taylor. Although she has been a student for nearly a year, she has never spoken to a teacher, she said. “They e-mail you a package of reading materials to read with a multiple-choice exam that is open book,” said Marando, who is from Tanzania. “For me, it is very convenient and I can work full time and read a little bit on the side. It is pretty easy.”
Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • MySpace
  • NewsVine
  • Ping.fm
  • Reddit
  • Scoopeo
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
Share This Post

Continue Reading

0

Last week my esteemed colleague, Nick Fishman, wrote about the IRS’ current state of background screening and fingerprinting for tax preparers.  According to Bloomberg, the IRS has decided to table the decision but is still considering the use of Consumer Reporting Agencies (CRA’s) to be a part of the process.

According to Bloomberg:

IRS will not go forward with fingerprinting of tax preparers as part of the background check that will determine if they are eligible to receive a preparer tax identification number, an IRS official says on a wide- ranging Tax Talk Today broadcast that covers 2011 filing changes. Preston Benoit, deputy director of the IRS’s Return Preparer Office, says that IRS has “tabled the fingerprinting option right now.” Instead a group has been formed to determine how to move forward, with consumer reporting agencies still a likely contender.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • MySpace
  • NewsVine
  • Ping.fm
  • Reddit
  • Scoopeo
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
Share This Post

Continue Reading

0

I just read a great, albeit long article in my current edition of Fortune Magazine about fraudster Barry Minkow.  This story has it all: from love, crime, betrayal, corporate greed, personal greed and rags to riches, to prison stripes!   A simple blog posting will not do this story  justice. Fortune did a great job, Kudos to the author, Roger Parloff.

Why am I writing about it and what does it have to do with background screening, employment checks, criminal searches, credit reports or anything to do with background checks? One sentence, captured me to read on and think about our industry and the current debate of criminal recidivism.  That sentence; “His story is hard to read without pondering the question; Is Character Destiny?”  Is it?  I don’t know, I don’t think it is overall.(Character being your destiny) I mean it’s a strong general statement and could unintentionally stereotype some ex-criminals.  Is Character Destiny? It really begs the question; if you have a previous record and you just have the type of character that says, “Let’s make a quick buck. Do it the easy way and break the law,” do you have any chance at redemption?  It plays into what many of us in the industry argue all the time; there are just some bad people out there, period.

I promise, I will get to the link.  One more thing that caught my eye and that definitely ties him to the employment screening industry was one of his past side businesses.  In 2008, Minkow created a business that would comb through databases looking for inflated educational credentials on the part of corporate officers.  Great idea, right?  Sounds like he could have been a pioneer in the screening industry, one of us, one of the good guys!!  Well, he took this a step further.  When he found a discrepancy he would short the stock, leak the story to a reporter and when the priced dipped, make a nice profit.  He exposed resume embellishments at more than a dozen companies, including MGM Mirage, Broadcom and EchoStar.   Yeah, not one of us, not one of the good guys….not so much!

Okay, as promised, Click here to read the full story!

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • MySpace
  • NewsVine
  • Ping.fm
  • Reddit
  • Scoopeo
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
Share This Post

Continue Reading

1

By Jason Morris, President & Kevin Bachman, VP of Quality Service.

We have made a conscious effort over the years to NOT make our blog a self-promotional site.  In fact, it’s with great care that we let you draw your own conclusions from the information that we put out.

On Sunday a story hit the AP wire that has made its way around our industry.  The article, points a wicked finger at the screening industry as dangerous, lazy and careless.  The article calls out a few background check companies, also known as Consumer Reporting Agencies (CRA’s) for reporting incorrect, and un-verified information to employers. Employers use these inaccurate reports to deny people jobs, hurting innocent people simply looking for work.

We love to take strong positions against inaccurate reporting. We find no more pleasure than calling out news that is wrong, looking smarter than some reporter looking to make his bones by writing a careless expose… WE CAN’T DO THAT HERE.  The reporter was right in all aspects except one; WE ARE NOT ALL THE SAME!

Are there companies that are careless and quick to pass along outdated or inaccurate information? YES. Are there companies that use only databases and don’t research actual court records? YES. Are there companies that simply scrape data off of court websites and don’t check it for accuracy? You guessed it, YES AGAIN.  It’s these companies that give us all a bad name; pushing onto employers the idea that screening is a commodity then sell the cheapest product possible to fit neatly into the world they’ve just created.

There are reasons for this.  Conducting background checks is a complicated business. The employers are generally unaware of the nuances of local, county, state, and federal laws, their processes, problems or regulations. And that’s not their fault. It’s not their business.  But without this knowledge, and with all companies claiming to do the same thing, it’s easy to discount claims of service and accuracy and simply look at price and whiz-bang technology systems.  On the other side, these screening companies know this; and their use of terms like “criminal search”, “instant” and “national background check,” combined with bells and whistles software allows them to perpetuate a higher degree of accuracy than their processes actually provide.

Last week we wrote about our experience at the Criminal Records and Employment Conference at Cornell ILR Law School in NY.  We wrote about the civil rights activists that were upset about all things screening.  We still stand tall and disagree with many of their positions; however, it’s stories like this that help us realize why they are so upset!  People are getting hurt everyday by these careless background checks and companies hiding behind loopholes in the Fair Credit Reporting Act rather than taking personal responsibility for their actions.

Its because of all this that EmployeeScreenIQ takes a “No Shortcuts” approach to all things screening.  “No Shortcuts” is more than just a tagline or fancy marketing campaign. It is the foundation for how we operate our business. This mantra is employed at every level of our organization so that you can make informed hiring decisions. One of the worst things you can do in your background screening process is to make a hiring decision based on inaccurate data. Rather than just reporting raw, unconfirmed information, EmployeeScreenIQ takes the necessary steps to ensure the results are reliable, accurate and up to date. Three fundamental principles of the Federal law WE choose to follow.

Before reporting criminal records to you, our Public Records department actually confirms that the information we’ve found belongs to your applicant. They also actually consult our 50 state compliance guide to ensure that the record is legally reportable. Believe it or not, the same methods apply to verifying other pieces of adverse information such as employment and education verifications. We’re all for streamlining the process and reducing turnaround time, but it should NEVER come at the expense of a quality product. Want proof that our methods work? Only .017% of all county criminal checks we complete are disputed.  (A dispute rate that this article points out screening companies are unwilling to publish!!!)

The proof is in the pudding.  EmployeeScreenIQ has successfully achieved compliance with the National Association of Professional Background Screeners accreditation program and is formally recognized as Background Screening Credentialing Council Accredited.  This recognition affirms EmployeeScreenIQ’s commitment to excellence, accountability, high professional standards and continued institutional improvement. Less than 2% of employment screening companies have earned this distinction and we are pleased to share such a small stage.

Accreditation is an important seal of approval that all companies should look for when choosing a provider as it is the only program in our field that proves their procedures are compliant with industry best practices. It also affirms security protocols, industry knowledge and expertise.

AP IMPACT: When your criminal past isn’t yours

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • MySpace
  • NewsVine
  • Ping.fm
  • Reddit
  • Scoopeo
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
Share This Post

Continue Reading

1

This week I had the pleasure of going to New York City for the Richard Netter Conference on Criminal Records and Employment at the Cornell University ILR  School.  I had heard about the conference a few months back and was happy to join other representatives from the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS).  In what I anticipated being a complete hatchet job on the screening industry, it turned out that we agree on many more points than we disagree; and that’s a great start! The focus of the conference was a to have a better understanding of and a meeting of the minds on issues such as civil rights of former offenders, right to work, and other societal issues of the day related to criminal activity in the U.S..  The good news is there was a lot of broad range of topics discussed in this nine hour conference. The bad news is it has given me a lot to write about and Nick, even more to edit!

I anticipate that several posts will come out of this experience.  The first will be a general recap of the sessions and the questions raised.  I intend to drill down further on each of these issues and panels in future posts.

The keynote speaker was Cornell William Brooks, Esq.  Cornell is the President and CEO of the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice.  Mr. Brooks is a civil rights advocate and frequent speaker on criminal reentry into the workplace.  Brooks gave an excellent speech, set the stage for the issues that would be discussed and touched on many of the topics that face minorities today when trying to re-enter society.

The first panel was, “What are the issues of uniformity/inaccuracy in the reporting of criminal records? How do Consumer Reporting Agencies (CRA’s) operate?” In addition to Montserrat Miller, the lobbyist for NAPBS, the panel also included scholars and a non NAPBS member screening company.  In my opinion this panel proved the importance of NAPBS membership, specifically because of the standards our members strive to achieve.  Professor Shawn Bushway, a frequent speaker and author of studies on criminal recidivism gave an overview of his research and, what I believe to be, some conclusions based on very old data.  For instance, in his research he shows criminal repositories to have more accurate dispositions than actual county court records.  Those of us in the screening industry and many HR professionals know this couldn’t be further from the truth.  Admittedly he says the data is older and needs updating.

The second panel, “Title VII, Adverse impact and criminal records as a selection device matrix approaches, and the uniform selection guidelines” was well received.  The panelists were mostly attorneys on both sides of the issues.  I felt the most impactful was P. David Lopez, General Counsel of the EEOC.  He raised many controversial issues, such as the EEOC not being convinced that negligent hiring suits are not as important as perceived discrimination of ex-offenders in the workplace.  Mr. Lopez made an assumption that negligent hiring lawsuits have been on the decline. Personally I believe that begs the question; are they on the decline because more companies are doing background checks?

After our lunch address we had our third panel, “What do employers need to know when using criminal records? What is relevant to hiring? Employer’s fear of negligent hiring suits.”  I was really interested in this panel mainly because a true industry perspective would be on the panel, a member of the NAPBS Board of Directors., he was also joined by Alfred Blumstein and Kiminoi Nakamura, authors of a oft-cited controversial study focusing on criminal recidivism.  This study followed 88,000 first time offenders from 1980 in the state of New York.  The study showed a very low rate of recidivism for these “first time offenders”, however the conclusion derived from the research is full of holes due to a number of scenarios that we not considered.  The study only covered first time offenders, it does not track crimes outside of New York, and recidivism assumes that the person has actually been caught. We have covered this study a few times in the past.

Our fourth and final panel had the most impact on the audience.  “Restoration Issues: What employment models work? Is ban the box an answer to refusal to hire?”  The final speaker on this panel was an ex-convict who spent 19 years in prison for a 1992 manslaughter conviction.  Still out on parole, Anthony Cardenales is now a supply chain manager at a well known recycling company. Mr. Cardenales is a poster child for giving someone a second chance and he gave an excellent speech to support it.  The owner of his company, WeRecycle, was also in attendance and gave a glowing recommendation for other employers to follow suit and give a chance to ex-offenders.  The tone was that background checks weed out possible good employees and employers should look beyond what is on a rap sheet.  I posed the question to him, “do you still conduct background checks?”  His indicated that he does.  He said that they are worried about theft and do their best to identify those with significant theft records.  I still struggle with giving a chance to someone who clearly killed another human being over someone who took property from another, but everyone is entitled to take their own risks in business.  The most troubling speaker was an attorney that made the claim that our industry uses extreme examples of sex offenders trying to work with children.  She made it look like folklore, like a boogey man that doesn’t exist.  Perhaps she has not been following the recent events at Penn State and Syracuse.  With over 700,000 registered sex offenders in the United States, all looking for work at some point, I hardly identify this as extreme.  Putting these types of offenders aside, she must have no understanding for the other violent, dishonest and non qualified people that might be trying to work for someone’s company.  We have always stated that there is a job for everyone, however, there is sometimes just too much risk when there is no protection to an employer, their employees or their customers .

There will be more to come on this conference in the coming weeks!

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • MySpace
  • NewsVine
  • Ping.fm
  • Reddit
  • Scoopeo
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
Share This Post

Continue Reading

0

I, Jason B. Morris, PhD (From a diploma mill) recently came across an interesting article in today’s New York Times.  It appears that based on a recent court case in Texas, unaccredited schools are legal and are likely there to stay!  Tyndale Theological Seminary & Biblical Institute, a private Bible based learning institution with only religious course offerings recently won the right after a case allowing them to grant degrees.  In HEB Ministries Inc. Vs. Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, the Texas Supreme Court allowed these degrees to be granted.

Christopher Cone, the president of Tyndale called “a key victory for Christian education in Texas.”  But critics of the decision say it may have opened the door to turning Texas into a breeding ground for unregulated diploma mills, with institutions allowed to grant degrees without approval from the state or a recognized accrediting body.

According to the New York Times;  Mr. Cone said such fears were unfounded. “What you saw rise up immediately after the decision was not diploma mills,” he said, “but Bible institutes that had been struggling and were suddenly able to put themselves out there.”

State officials are now reviewing whether the Texas court determination conflicts with the Obama administration’s broad new set of rules aimed at strengthening the integrity of higher education programs nationwide.

Including a degree or education verification as a standard part of your organizations employment screening program is now more important than ever.  Any thorough background check should always include searches to weed fake diploma mills, this decision just makes this process that much more difficult, unless of course you use a professional screening firm to help!

For more on this story, click here!

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • MySpace
  • NewsVine
  • Ping.fm
  • Reddit
  • Scoopeo
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
Share This Post

Continue Reading

0

Over the past few years we have written countless posts about the EEOC and various State governments seeking to be progressive and give those with criminal records a second chance.  Their intentions are always good, however, we all know how this story ends.  I certainly don’t argue the merits of their ambition to make good for all in the world, but….the old adage; screw me once, shame on you, do it twice shame on me, seems to fit nicely here.

The Rhode Island Public Transit Authority (RIPTA) has now come under scrutiny because they hired two men with previous criminal records.  Again, a valiant effort to progressively make the world a better place, but, as we have always said, not everyone is suited for every position.  Should these men have been placed in this particular job? Should they have been given a second chance? Not our call to make, however, I think the EEOC will have a position or argument if they make future decisions based on this situation.  Time will tell!

According to WPRI.com Eyewitness News; RIPTA hired two ex-convicts as drivers for their RIde program, which serves the elderly and disabled. The men had lengthy criminal records and had served time at the ACI. They said the men profiled in the piece are no longer behind the wheel of a RiDe bus, but it is unclear if they were given job placement elsewhere within the agency.

The entire story reminds me of an old quote by Albert Camus;
“The evil that is in the world almost always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence if they lack understanding.”

RIPTA puts brakes on hiring people with criminal records

The head of the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority has come under fire after the agency hired two men with criminal records to drive buses transporting the elderly and disabled.

Chief Executive Charles Odimgbe described it as a pilot program that has been discontinued. He said it reintegrated former criminals into society.

Thomas Deller, chairman of the agency’s board, praised the program. But board member Maureen Martin told Odimgbe that hiring men with criminal records raises passenger safety issues.

The Amalgamated Transit Union accuses Odimgbe of undermining bus service through attempted cost-savings.

The board on Monday did not discuss the hirings, first reported by WPRI. Deller says the board will take up the question another time.

The Senate Committee on Housing will investigate.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • MySpace
  • NewsVine
  • Ping.fm
  • Reddit
  • Scoopeo
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
Share This Post

Continue Reading

0

Background Check Law Could Get Some Pennsylvania Teachers Fired

(Reuters) – A new Pennsylvania law requiring all school workers to disclose their criminal history next month could see some employees who have been convicted of various crimes lose their jobs.

The law, signed by Governor Tom Corbett in June, went into effect in September and mandates background checks for all employees of public, private and vocational schools. Administrators must notify employees of the law and have them return a form reporting any criminal history by December 27.

“Our focus now is on helping our members comply with the law,” said Wythe Keever, spokesman for the Pennsylvania State Education Association, the union representing teachers and other school employees.

The law, which is retroactive, bans anyone convicted of certain crimes from school district employment for anywhere from three years to life. A conviction for stalking, kidnapping, aggravated assault or other child-related crime convictions would result in a lifetime ban.

School workers convicted twice for driving under the influence of alcohol would be barred from working for a school district until three years after completing their sentence.

Those convicted of a first-, second-, or third-degree felony would be barred from working for a school district for 10 years, while those convicted of first-degree misdemeanors cannot be hired for five years.

Keever said the union was concerned about conflicts in wording between the law and the form school employees must fill out. He said the law only requires convictions be reported, while the form asks employees to check “arrested or convicted” or “never been arrested or convicted”.

The teachers’ union was asking school districts not to require employees to fill out the forms until that issue is clarified. Keever said the union’s attorneys were also considering whether to issue a legal challenge regarding retroactive implementation.

“It may be unconstitutional to apply the law retroactively,” Keever said.

The law also requires school employees to inform administrators within 72 hours of fresh arrests or convictions. A school administrator who suspects an employee was arrested or convicted and failed to report it can require the employee to get a background check.

Any worker who refuses to fill out the form must submit a current criminal history record from the state and federal government at the employee’s own expense.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • MySpace
  • NewsVine
  • Ping.fm
  • Reddit
  • Scoopeo
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
Share This Post

Continue Reading

0

Attention EEOC, here is a quandary employers struggle with on a daily basis; how do we protect our employees, customers and our reputation?  Yesterday’s workplace shooting was proof that we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t!

SWAT teams were searching door to door with guns drawn Wednesday after a gunman killed three co-workers and wounded six at a morning meeting at a quarry in this Northern California city.

Schools were on lockdown or closed in the Silicon Valley city of Cupertino and nearby Los Gatos as police searched for the suspect, Shareef Allman.  Allman, a truck driver at the quarry, had shown up at a safety meeting at the plant Wednesday morning armed with a rifle and a handgun and opened fire, authorities said. Three people were killed and six others injured at the facility.

Allman, who remains at large, also shot a Hewlett-Packard employee in the leg and carjacked her vehicle as he fled the scene, authorities said. The shooting victims were taken to Stanford Medical Center and Santa Clara Valley Medical Center.

More

What in the world does this have to do with background screening you say? Well after some intense digging we found some articles pointing to his criminal records.  His  criminal history that includes five convictions for driving on a suspended or revoked license, and misdemeanor convictions for possession of stolen property and disturbing the peace.  Are these convictions job related? Would they have raised any red flags with his employer? You be the judge.  Some convictions can be misleading.  Disturbing the peace can be anything from yelling at a police officer, to running down the street with a loaded gun.  One will have a hard time explaining and justifying this to the families of the victims.

Its important for employers to educate themselves on the dangers of workplace violence and how they can help prevent it.  EmployeeScreenIQ released a white paper last year on this very subject.  Further, when checking an applicants criminal past, its important to look at everything, take no shortcuts and use this important information in determining if this applicant is a good fit for your organization!

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • MySpace
  • NewsVine
  • Ping.fm
  • Reddit
  • Scoopeo
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
Share This Post

Continue Reading

All information contained on this website is provided by employeescreenIQ solely for the convenience of the site viewers. employeescreenIQ is not providing legal advice or counsel and nothing provided on this website or otherwise by employeescreenIQ should be deemed as legal guidance or advice. Users are solely responsible for complying with all local, state, and federal laws relating to the use of any information provided on this website and any information products provided by employeescreenIQ. Users should consult with their own legal counsel if they have questions regarding their legal responsibilities or any information provided by employeescreenIQ.