EmployeeScreenIQ Blog

The FTC and the federal financial institution regulatory agencies have submitted their final rules and guidelines on how creditors and financial institutions must handle identity theft “red flags” and address discrepancies.

Highlights of the rules include the following measures that must be taken:

1. Identify relevant patterns, practices, and specific forms of activity that are “red flags” signaling possible identity theft and incorporate those red flags into the Program;
2. Detect red flags that have been incorporated into the Program;
3. Respond appropriately to any red flags that are detected to prevent and mitigate identity theft; and
4. Ensure the Program is updated periodically to reflect changes in risks from identity theft.

These guidelines seem like things you would think most creditors and financial institutions would already be doing. Hopefully, these measures can help protect consumers.

Click here to view the entire FTC Release

Continue Reading

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.

Continue Reading

Check out this update from Seyfarth Shaw concerning a recent rule established by ICE concerning tougher enforcement of Social Security Mismatch Numbers.

Social Security Mismatch Letters: New ICE Rule Increases Risk to Employers

Employers that don’t properly follow up on and resolve errors stemming from workers with social security numbers that come back as mismatches now face greater risk. If the government actually follows through on this employers should take note.

There are some affective tools out there for proactively determining an employee’s right to work status. One such tool is the Electronic I-9 Process which has developed by experts to allow employers to fill out a “smart” electronic I-9 form and submit it to the Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security for instant status. They then can electronically archive the report and the results. It’s a great solution to handle the I-9 process, but until the federal government enacts and enforces legislation my experience is that employers aren’t going to bite.

Continue Reading

Many of you may be aware of the law firm Seyfarth Shaw LLP. They are one of the country’s largest labor and employement firms and widely respected as a foremost expert in such matters. employeescreenIQ is proud to be a client of this esteemed firm and as such get regular legislative updates from them concerning employment topics that can affect all of us.

Seyfarth had been kind enough to allow us to post such updates in this blog, so beginning today we will screen these updates for information that might be of interest to our loyal blog readers.

Just another opportunity for us all the learn together.

Continue Reading

ABA Commission Pulls Proposal on Criminal Records

Thankfully, the American Bar Association caved in to business advocacy groups in it’s efforts to seal certain criminal convictions from the records of those seeking employment.

As I’ve said in the past and will continue to say as this issue comes up, it is not the goal of an effective background check to exclude people from getting a job. The purpose of a background check is to make an informed decision about a candidate. Just because someone has a been convicted of a crime should not alone disqualify that person from employment. However, employers shouldn’t be left in the dark. They are the ones who will be left holding the bag if something happens. If you want to correct this problem, teach employers how to make proper decisions and hold those accountable who do not.

Thank you to the folks at BRB Publications for bringing this story to our attention.

Continue Reading

I recently conducted an interview with Maxine Sweet, Vice President of Public Education at Experian. The interview was geared towards getting the low-down on the often misunderstood topic of Credit Reports and their use in hiring decisions. The article was published in our quarterly newsletter, The Verifier.

Hopefully, this sheds some light on what a credit check is and how it can be used to make an informed hiring decision.

Continue Reading

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.

Continue Reading

One of the most basic mandates outlined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) is the need to obtain a signed release from a job applicant before allowing a Consumer Reporting Agency to conduct a search for employment screening purposes. A compliant release informs the applicant about the scope of the search, who will be conducting the search and grants the employer with the waiver they need to execute a background check. It is a simple process, but when not followed can cause all sorts of trouble for employers, as illustrated in a recent Washington Post Report about large organizations in the rail road industry’s failure to do so.

Further complicating matters was these employers failure to notify candidates when they were not hired due to adverse information being found on reports and their failure to authenticate the records to ensure that they indeed belonged to the subjects of these reports. This is another big FCRA no-no. Those who are not hired due to adverse information found on their background check must be provided with a letter that states so, that provides information on disputing their record and includes a free copy of the background check. As you can see from this article, it appears that none of this was done.

The good news is that the process for following these mandates is extremely easy. A couple quick forms and some best practices advice from your counsel and, or your employment screening provider and the problem can be fixed. Remember though that the process is supposed to fair to all parties. Employers must protect the rights of their candidates so that their right to seek a background check is also protected.

Continue Reading

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.

Continue Reading

As more organizations participate in the global economy, international background checks are becoming increasingly important.  However, as opposed to conducting background checks in the United States, the rules and methods for doing so are not clearly defined.  For instance, the type of information varies from country to country.  By and large, the most common types of overseas checks are limited to Criminal Records Searches, Employment and Education Verifications and Terrorist Watch List Searches.  However the depth and detail of information can differ greatly by country. 

Further, there is no international version of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) that governs the use of background checks.  Organizations can become Safe Harbor Certified with the U.S. Department of Commerce.  Such a certification mandates some general best practices when it comes to applicant authorizations and the transmission of private information across international borders.  In general, it is best to afford overseas applicants with the same rights as domestic applicants when no clear regulation has been established (i.e. dispute resolution).

Lastly, since every country operates differently it is important to know where to access information, what information is needed to locate records and what you can expect in terms of results, turnaround time and cooperation. 

A good screening partner should be able to help you with direction and recommendations on all of the above.  Know of any?

Continue Reading