We just published The Verifier XXIV, Fall 2011 Edition, a publication intended as an educational tool and information resource for human resource professionals or anyone interested in keeping abreast of recent employment screening and background check industry developments.

Highlights of this issue include the following:

Articles:

• Time to Streamline Your Background Screening Process? Check Out Our Latest Video
• No Shortcuts. Smarter Screening Equals Intelligent Hiring.
• Top Commercial Airline Flies High With EmployeeScreenIQ
• 2011 Background Check Turkey Awards
• Background Checks Gone Wild Hurt Us All

Announcements and Legislative Updates

• EmployeeScreenIQ Rated Top 5 Screening Firm in U.S.
• California Governor Bans Use of Employment Credit Reports
• EmployeeScreenIQ Announces Integration with Taleo Business Edition
• EmployeeScreenIQ Recognized as Fastest Growing Company

Check it out!

Today, we officially announced the completion our certified integration with Taleo Business Edition. This new integration allows Taleo users to perform legally compliant background checks through a seamless and paperless solution.

Taleo combines leading on-demand talent management solutions with the industry’s largest ecosystem of customers, partners and candidates. Taleo’s solutions provide businesses of all sizes with the Talent Intelligence they need to know their workforce and grow their businesses. Taleo Business Edition serves the talent needs of small and mid-sized organizations ranging from one to 5,000 employees.

Taleo is a dominant force in the talent management space, so we’re pleased to offer this important integration. It’s also allows for great benefits to our customers and prospective clients which we hope to announce in the coming weeks. Stay tuned.  In the meantime, feel free to check out our Solution Provider page on Taleo’s site.

Read our Official Release

(Reuters) – Sen. Charles Schumer said on Sunday he would introduce legislation requiring major utility plants to run background checks on employees to help prevent security threats against power facilities.

Citing a recent U.S. Department of Homeland Security report that found insider sabotage at electric, gas, and water utilities was a significant threat to U.S. national security, Schumer said al Qaeda was known to be recruiting extremists to infiltrate and work in sensitive areas such as utilities.

“Power plants and utilities present a tempting and potentially catastrophic target to extremists who are bent on wreaking havoc on the United States,” Schumer said.

“Thorough background checks on all workers with access to the most sensitive areas of these operations are a must,” he said, calling the DHS report “a wake-up call that we must ensure those with access to our most critical infrastructure — and our power supplies — are not compromised by extremist influences.”

Currently only nuclear power plants are required to conduct FBI background checks on employees with unescorted access to facilities.

More

For what I believe is my fifth time, I had the pleasure of representing my industry, along with 15 other colleagues for the annual NAPBS Fly-In.  The National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS) has been organizing this important event for the past six years.  It has quickly become one of the most important things we do as an industry association. Having a voice in Washington and a and an audience with the federal government continues to allow us to impact the legislative process.  Over the years, many bills have been introduced that would have had an adverse effect on all of our nation’s employers use of employment background checks.   In many cases these bills are drafted without input from the private sector.   If simply passed as drafted, these bills would result in significant unintended consequences both on individuals and industries without our perspective and insights.  Thankfully, our lobbying efforts have paid off as our perspective and insights are regularly sought by our legislators so that they may be advised of such consequences.  This year was no exception.  Among the most important issues we focused on this year, was the EEOC’s increased scrutiny over the use of employment background checks.  We feel that they have considerable misperceptions and what we do and an industry and how we do it and have worked hard over the years to better educate them on these issues; particularly as it relates to the use of criminal records and credit reports. We had three separate meetings with them last week and while the effect of our efforts isn’t known at this time, we at least were heard.  One of the nice outcomes of our meetings is that we were able to convince them that credit scores are not used by employers to make hiring decisions.  We still have a long way to go but I believe that we have identified some likeminded individuals working for the commissioners that are sympathetic to our position and willing to listen.

We also had a productive meeting with our current regulators, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).  It is still unclear as to exactly what dual regulation will mean when the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is launched.  We do know that both the FTC and CFPB be responsible for overseeing the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the federal law that governs the use of employment background checks.   It is important to note that the CFPB will have rule making and enforcement authority; something the FTC never had.   Policy making and supervisory authority will be shared between the two agencies.  For example, the FTC will still enforce Red Flags and Disposal Rules but he CFPB will enforce other areas (to be determined) of the FCRA.  The two agencies are still working hard to flush everything out.  One thing is for sure; they will be working with NAPBS, not against us.  We are thankful to have relationship with our regulators.

There are three bills of interest we are watching closely.

• The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFEATELU) enacted in 2005 (49 USC 31150; Pub. L. 109-59 4117), which created the Pre-employment Screening Program (PSP) for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).   We are working to make sure that the PSP program can be accessed by 3^rd parties (like the legislation that was passed laid out specifically) so we can access this information on behalf of our clients. Much more to come on this issue in the coming months
• The Safe Roads Act of 2011 which is a complement to SAFEATELU but adds all kinds of Drug and Alcohol Testing Provisions.  Coincidentally, while in Washington, NAPBS was able to submit comments and red-line revisions to the Safe Roads Act (S. 754) before the bill goes to mark-up today.
• The Child Protection Improvements Act which is in pilot status and aims to ensure background checks are performed on individuals working with children. The Child Protection act is important because we are working to ensure that the records are obtained from reliable accurate sources, not unreliable sources such as FBI records.  The method of using FBI records offers little protection to consumers.  I find this ironic since the bill is co-sponsored by representatives from NY and CA, both states that have the most inclusive consumer protection laws in regard to employment screening.

Overall this year’s efforts seemed to be very effective and we are hopeful that they will yield positive results for both employers and our industry.  On a personal note,  I will never forget this trip for reasons that have nothing to do with our lobbying efforts.  I arrived on Sunday, May 1^st and before I turned in for the night, I turned on the news and saw that Osama Bin Laden had been killed. Within minutes, people were celebrating in the streets.  My hotel was only 4 blocks from the White House, and I was kept up all night with screaming, cheering and horns honking through the night.  I have never been so happy to be awake so late!!

Over the last several years as employment screening has become the norm, various government agencies and others have been critical of the process.  Their reasons differ but the debate is the same, in its most simple form many that are critical simply don’t understand exactly what we do as an industry.  Many of the critics have used the same argument over the years.

• Employers use credit scores to eliminate applicants with bad credit.
• Any criminal record will ban you from employment anywhere.
• Employers are intentionally creating a second class of unemployable citizens who have criminal records.
• Having an employer run your credit will ruin your credit.

These are all false assumptions.  Pre Employment Credit Reports do NOT contain a credit score, in fact, many things that appear on a consumer credit report do NOT appear on an Employment Credit Report, such as account numbers and other information not relevant to employment. In addition, pulling these reports count as a soft inquiry, thus not affecting the overall credit score.  Under federal and many state laws, these negative things should only be used if within the scope and responsibilities of the job.  In our experience, less than 10% of employers even utilize these types of reports.

Now let’s discuss criminal records.  Like credit, simply having a criminal record would not bar one from employment everywhere.  Under Federal and many State laws the nature of the offense and conviction should be recognized and compared to the job responsibilities.  It is very important to remember, companies spend a lot of money finding and recruiting good talent.   The intent of the company is to hire the individual, not find ways to exclude them.  If the company feels the offense or conviction will be a risk to them based on the position, they may chose to look elsewhere.

As screeners, we believe there is a job for everyone.  However, there are times when because of someone’s past, they may not be the best fit for the job they are seeking.  A candidate with no job relatedness convictions and solid background and qualifications just might have the edge for certain positions; there is no mistaking this reality.  It is simply an employer’s right to choose what is best for their organization and mitigate their risk as much as possible. Organizations are simply damned if they do and damned if they don’t.  When a company decides to take a risk on someone they are then vulnerable to a Negligent Hiring lawsuit.  In a nutshell, employers are getting sued of they failed to properly screen an applicant.  If they could have known, they should have known.  If they don’t take the risk they are vulnerable to other types of suits and penalties such as violations of the EEOC.  The only fair thing to both parties is to at least allow the company knows what type of risk they may be encountering.

A recent article on the Huffington Post really takes aim at the employment screening industry and employers.  The writer mentions a recent report by the National Employment Law Project (NELP).  They cover many of the misconceptions outlined above but also falls short in many areas.  What the report fails to mention is the over 50% of applicants who simply lie and misrepresent things on their resume.  In a recent study conducted by EmployeeScreenIQ over 56% of people lie on their applications.  These include individuals with fake degrees from known diploma mills, false salary histories, misrepresenting degrees altogether and jobs they actually never had.

For critics of the process I offer two recent stories:

Mark E. Lawlor bludgeoned a women, Genevieve Orange, 29, to death with a hammer, and then raped her as she lay dying.  The photos of her body were too gruesome to be shown in the courtroom.  Her assailant was a leasing agent in her building and used his passkey to enter her apartment as she slept on her couch.  He bashed her in the head 30 times with a hammer, and 17 more times on her arms and body, an autopsy showed, then sexually assaulted her and left behind DNA that implicated him.  What was in his background? While on probation in New Jersey for an earlier crime “Lawlor moved to southern Virginia. But at 18, he drunkenly stole a truck, rolled it over and killed a friend. He went to prison for the first time. . . In 1998, while Lawlor was living in Northern Virginia, he began stalking an ex-fiancée in Great Falls. One night, he snatched her from her car by smashing her windshield and swiping the keys. He did another five-year prison stretch.”

More recently in New York a casino bus driver crashed on a NY highway killing 15 people.  This individual had a history of driving without a license and other vehicular offenses and served nearly seven years for manslaughter and grand larceny.  His two criminal convictions: for stabbing a man to death and stealing from the Police Athletic League. Williams shouldn’t even have been at the wheel – his driving privileges were suspended after he ignored tickets for speeding and driving without a license in 1995, The Associated Press reported. Now to be fair, we don’t know if the driver did anything illegal to cause the crash, but with the aforementioned convictions (especially the driving offenses), what was this person doing driving a tour bus?  This company failed to run a proper background check, they have learned the hard way.  In addition to these 15 innocent people being killed, the victims families are already filing multi million dollar suits against the company.

These cases may be extreme but we come across these things regularly.  I am curious to hear what you think?

The murder charges against a Suburban Hospital employee who police say killed his boss over workplace disputes have raised questions about how a man with a violent past slipped through the background checks the hospital says it routinely employs.

Suburban spokeswoman Ronna Borenstein-Levy said the hospital conducted a background check on 49-year-old engineer Keith D. Little — accused of stabbing his supervisor, Roosevelt Brockington Jr., more than 70 times in Suburban’s boiler room — but that check “did not return information on prior arrests and convictions.”

But court records show Little was charged with second-degree murder in a 2003 D.C. slaying but was found not guilty in a jury trial. He also served about six years in prison after he was convicted of several assault charges and obstruction of justice related to a 1984 attack.

Borenstein-Levy said police and prosecutors have told the hospital that cases that result in an acquittal or successful appeal often do not appear on background checks.

She would not elaborate on Suburban’s procedures for conducting background checks.

The hospital also asks employees to self-disclose past criminal convictions and pending charges, according to its online application. The application says that a criminal record “will not necessarily bar you from employment.” It says the hospital considers factors that include the person’s age at the time of the conviction, how much time has passed since then, the nature of the offense and rehabilitation.

More

Cuyahoga County (Cleveland, OH) is no stranger to controversy.  In fact, one might consider the political system in the county and city to be of the most corrupt in the country.  Recent investigations into county government have led to several arrests and were also catalysts for a complete county government reform.  More recently, a finalist to serve on the boards of revision has a criminal past that was not uncovered during the screening process.  The extent and the scope of the background check are unknown at this time, however the records were easily found after the fact.

Steven Majors is a data collector for the county auditor and has filled in for absent board members. Majors also has been convicted twice since 2005 for operating a vehicle while intoxicated and twice more for disorderly conduct, most recently in November, records show.

Full Story

In a monumental decision this weekend the Obama administration is changing the governments course on federal marijuana laws.  According to the Associated Press:

Federal drug agents won’t pursue pot-smoking patients or their sanctioned suppliers in states that allow medical marijuana, under new legal guidelines to be issued Monday by the Obama administration.

This puts many U.S. Employers and the U.S. Government as an employer in an ethical quandary.  Many employers use extensive background screening services such as EmployeeScreenIQ to screen potential candidates.  As part of this process substance abuse testing may be included.  Many employers use the Department of Transportation‘s (DOT) drug free workplace policies as a standard.  With fourteen states already allowing medical marijuana one can only wonder how these employers are supposed to react to these new policies.

This blog is not intended to start a “for or against” type of debate but more so to see how employers will react to the news.  In Ohio we don’t have medical marijuana but its gaining momentum.  Ohio is has great incentives for employers to create drug free workplaces.  Should it pass here it could create a tidal wave of questions from employers!

Feds to Issue New Medical Marijuana Policy

WASHINGTON – Federal drug agents won’t pursue pot-smoking patients or their sanctioned suppliers in states that allow medical marijuana, under new legal guidelines to be issued Monday by the Obama administration.

Two Justice Department officials described the new policy to The Associated Press, saying prosecutors will be told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state law.

The guidelines to be issued by the department do, however, make it clear that agents will go after people whose marijuana distribution goes beyond what is permitted under state law or use medical marijuana as a cover for other crimes, the officials said.

The new policy is a significant departure from the Bush administration, which insisted it would continue to enforce federal anti-pot laws regardless of state codes.

Fourteen states allow some use of marijuana for medical purposes: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

California is unique among those for the widespread presence of dispensaries — businesses that sell marijuana and even advertise their services. Colorado also has several dispensaries, and Rhode Island and New Mexico are in the process of licensing providers, according to the Marijuana Policy Project, a group that promotes the decriminalization of marijuana use.

More

We will kick off this weekends wrap up with a timely story from the National Football League (NFL).  Like my Cleveland Browns, the Oakland Raiders just can’t catch a break.  Fortunately for them they have a marker in the W column.  Unfortunately for them they have a bit of controversy off the field.  They are bracing for the possibility that coach Tom Cable could be arrested soon for an alleged assault on an assistant coach.  If charged, Cable could be suspended by the league.  If convicted Cable could run into serious problems if his next team decides to screen his criminal background.  More on that story here!

Making history today is Justice Sonia Sotomayor the first Hispanic justice of the United States Supreme Court.  Replacing retired Justice David Souter she will begin the new term with some interesting cases.  Background checks and gun laws will definitely be on their docket this year.  Most notably will be McDonald v. Chicago.  In 2008, the justices ruled in a case from the District of Columbia that the Second Amendment bestows an individual right to keep and bear arms. Because the case originated in a federal enclave, the justices passed on the question of whether the Second Amendment also applies to states, thus calling into question gun regulations in those jurisdictions. The justices have now taken up this question and are expected to decide whether citizens in Chicago — which has one of the most restrictive gun regulation regimes in the country — also enjoy the same Second Amendment rights as do their brethren in the District. This case was recently granted and is expected to be heard some time in early 2010.

In workplace violence news Forbes Magazine ran a story, Experts: US worker-on-worker violence under-reported.  Stemming from the murder at Yale Universtiy of Annie Le, they write about some interesting statistics.  Workplace homicide has dropped dramatically, to 444 such cases last year from twice as many in 1995, according to government statistics. And most of those deaths occur in robberies of taxi drivers and clerks. The worker-on-worker homicide rate hovers around a hundred a year nationwide, leaving little data to help predict who is likely to kill a co-worker, said Tom Tripp, co-author of “Getting Even: The Truth About Workplace Revenge.” More on this story Click Here

In a follow up to a story we wrote about extensively a few months back….Investigator: Bozeman’s Internet background checks weren’t voluntary.  If you remember this one, the City of Bozeman MT was asking job applicants to supply investigators with their passwords so they could access their Facebook and Myspace accounts as part of the pre-employment screening process.  The city suspended the policy in June of 2009 after they came under fire for the practice.  However, it appears as part of their investigation into the procedure they have found hiring managers got carried away with the practice! More on this story Click Here

This one should scare you if you have elderly relatives in Florida.  Florida lawmakers vow changes after learning of laxness, loopholes in checking child and elder care workers – Florida legislators pledged to overhaul state law to require that caregivers for children and the elderly undergo background checks before they begin work and to close loopholes that have let thousands of felons get jobs in day care and nursing homes.

The proposed reforms come after a Sun Sentinel investigative series last week identified disturbing flaws in the background screening system that allow people to work with Florida’s most vulnerable residents before the caregivers have been vetted. More on this story Click Here

And finally a Kidnapping plot proves the importance of background checks.  The man accused of plotting to kidnap two young girls from a bus stop and hold them for ransom made his first appearance in court on Friday.

Police say Ruben Garcia-Rosario parked his car near the girls’ bus stop to take pictures of them. Rosario is an illegal immigrant who had done some painting at the family’s house, according to investigators.

Would you let someone in your house without properly screening them?

More on this story Click Here

Well that’s it!  Have a great week and check back regularly for stories and comments in the background screening world!

If you have stories you would like us to blog about or post please feel free to email us at blog@employeescreen.com

Will the Philadelphia Eagles do a background check on their new quarterback, Michael Vick?  What is the NFL’s policy on allowing ex-convicts to play in their league?  Well we know the penalty is pretty severe for Brown’s receiver Donte’ Stallworth as we was just suspended for the 2009 season for killing a pedestrian and only serving 24 days in jail.  The NFL has an image problem, I don’t think Vick’s situation is helping much.  We have written before about professional football players, including a humorous take on Chad “OchoCinco” Johnson.  Law.com has an interesting take on the Vick situation:

As Michael Vick Returns to NFL, Employment Lawyers Push Criminal Records Checks

Michael Vick’s reinstatement into the National Football League is creating a lot of buzz in the employment law arena, where companies seek advice about using criminal records to make somewhat lower-profile job decisions. Employment lawyers say the case serves as a timely reminder to employers to review how they can obtain employee criminal records and how they can use them in hiring and firing decisions.

The Vick case — in which the NFL on July 27 conditionally reinstated the quarterback after he served 18 months in prison on dogfighting charges — is unusual in that his criminal record was widely reported in the media.

“They didn’t have to run to the courthouse to know what happened with Michael Vick, in which case the NFL was free and clear to take appropriate disciplinary action based on that information,” said management-side attorney H. Andrew Matzkin of Boston-based Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo. But that’s not how it typically works.

Employers must take care to obtain information about criminal records “in a lawful way and use it in a lawful way,” said Matzkin, who noted he is seeing an uptick in calls from clients asking how they too can use background checks. “If we’ve got somebody who is doing stuff we don’t like outside of work, can we ask them about it? Can we find a way to see what they’re doing? And if we don’t like it, can we let them go?” said Matzkin, listing some of his clients’ questions.

More