EmployeeScreenIQ Blog

We recently attended the Annual SHRM Conference in San Diego, CA and as always met up with some HR industry experts and insiders to discuss the latest trends and technologies relevant to staffing, employees and background checks.

Our first podcast was with Bernie Dyme, President and CEO of Perspective’s Ltd. a workplace resources firm specializing in the nationwide delivery of Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs), Managed Behavioral Healthcare, WorkLife Services, Organizational Development and Wellness.  You might recall that Bernie was one of our expert panelists on the webinar we conducted earlier this year on workplace violence.

That said, we took advantage of Bernie’s expertise in this regard for on update on workplace violence stats and tips for prevention including thorough employment background checks.  Take a listen.

Continue Reading

Our neighbors to the north are decades ahead of us in passing legislation to curb workplace violence. Major changes to the provincial Occupational Health and Safety Act called Bill 168 create new rules to prevent violence and harassment in the workplace. The bill does not directly address background checks or employment screening, however, another provision obligates an employer to warn employees if its knows, or should know, that a worker could come into contact with a person with a history of violence. (Kind of sounds like the Negligent Hiring Doctrine) How would it know this; the answer is simple, comprehensive screening of their employees.

Ontario employers face tough new violence laws

There were plenty of warning signs of trouble in the months before nurse Lori Dupont’s final shift at Hôtel-Dieu Grace Hospital in Windsor, Ont.

In February of 2005, she had broken up with Marc Daniel, a 50-year-old married anesthesiologist, after he tried to kill himself. The two had met while working in the hospital, where Dr. Daniel had a history of harassing nurses, both verbally and physically.

When he was released from hospital after his suicide attempt, Dr. Daniel returned to work, where he intimidated and stalked Ms. Dupont, a 36-year-old single mother. He left compromising photos of her on her car and threatened to distribute them. He was suspended, but soon back at work again, on the recommendation of a psychiatrist.

On the morning of Nov. 12, when the pair were on a shift together, Dr. Daniel hid behind a pillar in the recovery room. Minutes later, he stabbed Ms. Dupont to death, plunging a hunting knife into her upper chest and back seven times. He was later found in his car, with a syringe in his arm and no vital signs. He died three days later in the same hospital.

Almost five years later, new workplace violence and harassment rules prompted by Ms. Dupont’s death are set to take effect in Ontario. On June 15, employers in the province will have to comply with the major changes to the provincial Occupational Health and Safety Act, contained in amendments known as Bill 168.

Other provinces, including Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, have some comparable legislation, but some legal experts say Ontario’s new rules are vague in places and leave questions that will likely have to be answered in court.

And employment lawyers in Ontario say that with the deadline now less than three months away, many of the province’s corporations are only now coming to grips with the changes.

Under the coming regulations, employers will have to conduct workplace violence risk assessments, draft new policies on workplace violence and harassment, and warn employees if they could be exposed at work to someone with a violent past.

Employees will also have the right to refuse to work if they feel they are at risk of workplace violence.

The reforms also broaden the definition of workplace harassment, which is currently limited to sexist, racist or other comments covered by the Ontario Human Rights Code. Now, harassment will be defined as including “course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.”

More

Continue Reading

The state of Washington has had a record year that it hopes not to ever repeat again.  Deaths that resulted from workplace violence instances were at their highest level in decades with 13 on-the-job homicides and 7 suicides.  KPBJ.com reports, “In addition to the slayings last year of six law enforcement offices, others who died as a result of workplace violence included clerks in the retail business, a taxi driver, a musician and an armored car driver. ‘While deaths involving criminal activity may seem particularly hard to avoid, certain measures can reduce the risk that employees will become victims of violence in the workplace,’ said Michael Silverstein, assistant director of the Department’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health.”

Could employment background checks have prevented even a portion of these incidents?  Experts such as Seyfarth Shaw attorney, Mark Lies, Perspectives Ltd. CEO, Bernie Dyme and National Institute for the Prevention of Workplace Violence’s Barry Nixon all suggested in EmployeeScreenIQ’s January Webinar on Workplace Violence that employment screening is one of the major keys to prevention.

Unfortunately, we are seeing more and more incidents of workplace violence around the country.  Since the deep recession has hit, people are more stressed out both at home and at work.  This stress is most certainly manifesting itself in the form of workplace incidents whether physical or mental.

For more information about this topic and suggestions for prevention, check out our recent white paper, “Protecting Your Employees From Workplace Violence”.

Continue Reading

Earlier today, I wrote a post about the importance verifying a candidate’s date of birth before conducting a background check and used the workplace violence incident that took place at Ohio State as an example of what can go wrong.  I pointed out that the applicant gave an incorrect date of birth and that the University failed to confirm the birth date by looking at his driver’s license.

I have since learned that this is not the case.  I have now been told that it was the court where the conviction occurred who had the record filed under the wrong date of birth.  If this is true then no matter what Ohio State and the background screener did, the background check would have been doomed from the start.  Notwithstanding this information, the information we shared about the importance of confirming date of birth are still just as relevant.

Continue Reading

Many employers wonder why they need to provide an applicant’s date of birth in order to perform thorough employment background checks.  This story below, might convince them of the importance of not only providing the date of birth, but also why it is vitally important to verify the given birth date.

By now, many of you have seen the story about the workplace violence incident that took place at The Ohio State University last week which resulted the shooting death of one employee and a serious wound to another.  The first thing everyone asked, and rightfully so: did the university conduct a background check before hiring this employee?  The answer was yes and the background check didn’t reveal the employee’s past conviction where he spent 5 years in prison for receiving stolen property.  The university says that had it known of the record, they never would have hired the individual.

Of course, the media jumped all of the company that performed the background check.  But before you automatically assume that the screening provider botched the check, here’s an important fact to consider and an equally important lesson for employers. It turns out that the employee provided the school with a fraudulent date of birth.

Why is that a problem?

Nearly all courts file criminal records by name and date of birth (some include more information).  In order to conduct a criminal background check, court researchers must search by both the name and date of birth.  If the date of birth is incorrect, the record will not be found.  Originally, both the school and the media seemed to be squarely blaming the background screening company.  However, it appears that the record was missed because Ohio State ran the check using the wrong date of birth.

So hear is the lesson.  Employers must verify an applicant’s date of birth before performing the background check. All you have to do is look at a driver’s license or other government issued ID.  Failing to do so allows the applicant to provide you with fake information which will ultimately derail your efforts to perform thorough employment background checks.  Verifying the date of birth also helps to avoid innocent mistakes or clerical errors. Now, I’m sure my alma mater had the best intentions in mind.  In truth, my guess is that many organizations forget or neglect to do this.  Unfortunately, the results can be deadly.

For more information on what employers can do to combat workplace violence, please download our recent whitepaper, Protecting Your Employees from Workplace Violence.

Continue Reading

Colleges and Universities in the United States have been performing lax background checks for years.  We have written time and again about our nations schools and their reluctance to conduct searches properly.  A College or University is no different than any company and some could argue their responsibilities to vet them is even greater.  In our latest story at The Ohio State University a janitor opened fire on his co-workers, it could just have easily been a student! What do we know about this janitors responsibilities? Did he have master keys to student dorms? What if he was a rapist? I ask these questions because organizations sometimes fail to conduct a proper background check because that person is “just a janitor” or “just a clerk”, what harm could they cause?  Remember Nan Toder? Nan was raped and killed in her hotel room by “just a maintenance manager”.   Having unfettered access is like having keys to the kingdom!

In our most recent example, Nataniel Brown, showed extreme signs of violence at his last job.  Before that, Amy Bishop, the University of Alabama shooter had a similar work history.  Although there is now silver bullet a simple reference check or employment verification may have disqualified them from employment.

Recently our workplace violence white paper has received a lot of publicity, I wish it wasn’t ever a story.  We don’t like to see  people hurt and/or killed!  However, we wouldn’t need the white paper if organizations vetted their employees properly.  Perhaps a review of our Employment Screening 101 series is prudent at this time for those looking to review their current policies.

Our wish is simple, please don’t make us write about workplace violence again! Listen to our advice, do things properly, protect your employees and our children!

Continue Reading

I am a little late to the game with this one as I have been attending the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS) Conference in San Antonio, Texas.  Workplace violence issues have been on the rise in 2009 and 2010.  In the last two months alone, we have had two involving college campuses in the United States.  Of course being from Ohio this one hits closer to home than any of them.  It appears Nathaniel Brown opened fire on some of his co-workers the other day at The Ohio State University.  Brown had a poor performance review which lead to him shoot two supervisors killing one, then himself.

Records also show Brown served about five years in prison on a charge of receiving stolen property. He lied about his criminal history on his job application, and it wasn’t clear whether Ohio State had completed a background check.

According to other reports he was a threat at his last job as well.  Background checks are important for 100% of your staff.  Not only does it create a workplace filled with qualified employees, it protects them!  There is no silver bullet that will prevent workplace violence (see our white paper from last month), but in this case I believe a quality background check would have prevented this!  If his past conviction didn’t disqualify him, his obvious recklessness at his past employer might have! A simple check of his past references could have saved lives!

Former Co-Worker Says OSU Gunman Threatened Him

COLUMBUS, Ohio — While Nathaniel Brown’s neighbors said they never imagined he was capable of opening fire on his co-workers, a man who used to work with him at a Columbus car dealership said otherwise on Tuesday.

The man, who asked not to be identified, said he feared Brown would do something violent years earlier, 10TV’s Kevin Landers reported.

“He was the type of person that everyone in our dealership tried to stay away from,” the man said.

He said Brown threatened to kill him and two others at the dealership before he was let go in 2004.

On Tuesday, after Brown was identified as the gunman who shot two employees at Ohio State, his former co-worker said he was not surprised.

“When I heard Nathaniel Brown, I looked over to my mother and said, ‘He’s finally killed someone,’” he said.

Records obtained by 10TV showed that Brown was sentenced to prison from 1979 to 1984 for receiving stolen property. He was hired as a custodian at Ohio State in October 2009.

It was not clear if Ohio State was required to conduct a criminal background check on Brown, but on his application for employment, Brown checked a box that said he had never been convicted of a felony, Landers reported.

More

Continue Reading

I just read a scary workplace violence story out of Knoxville, TN where a school teacher shot both his principal and assistant principal after his contract was not renewed.  In the aftermath, authorities wondered what the school could have done to prevent this unfortunate incident.  They conducted on a background check and it didn’t raise any red flags.  Well, unfortunately that background check did not include past employment verifications or references.  If they would have contacted the teacher’s most recent prior employer they would have found his former supervisor said that he threatened him with physical harm while in his employ.

We’ve recently spent a lot of time discussing how employers can avoid violence in the workplace (check out our white paper: Protecting Your Employees from Workplace Violence).  One of the key areas for prevention is to conduct a thorough background check.

See this excerpt from a letter written by a Knoxville area human resources professional published on KnoxvilleNews.com:

As a human resources professional, I can’t imagine why his former employers weren’t called as part of his background check. References (which should include past employers) are a basic part of any pre-employment screening process.

When one of his former supervisors was interviewed on a local television station, he said Foster threatened him with physical harm. Why didn’t the person responsible for doing the background check on Foster know that?

On the day the tragedy occurred, Superintendent Jim McIntyre stated that, during Foster’s hiring process, nothing was discovered that caused alarm. That doesn’t mean there wasn’t anything in his past that would cause alarm. It just means that someone in the Knox County school system’s human resources department obviously didn’t do a thorough job, and they should be held accountable.

Parents have a right to expect that the individuals who are with their children for most of the day are stable and able to nurture them. Foster was teaching fourth-graders and yelling at them.

Continue Reading

Yesterday we covered the Amy Bishop shooting story on our blog.   Later in the day we were contacted by the Associated Press for comment due to our extensive coverage of Workplace Violence issues.  Other than being a bit mis-quoted, the story turned out great.  Background screening firms do NOT check weapon registrations are part of the employment screening process.  There was obviously a bit of confusion, what I said was a reference check or employment verification MAY have uncovered something.  Oh well, we are working to have the quote restated!

Jason Morris, president of EmployeeScreenIQ, a Cleveland, Ohio, company that does background checks for colleges and other large institutions, said it’s possible a background check would not have turned up the incidents in Bishop’s past, particularly since she wasn’t charged.

“It’s not a silver bullet,” he said of background checks, but a check of weapons records “might have uncovered something.”

For the full story, read below:

Husband: Ala. prof went to range before shooting

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. — The husband of an Alabama college professor accused of shooting her colleagues says the couple went to a shooting range weeks before the killing but he didn’t know where she got the gun.

James Anderson told The Associated Press Monday that he did not know how long Amy Bishop had a gun before Friday’s attack. He says the family did not own a gun.

Bishop is accused of opening fire at a faculty meeting at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, killing three and wounding three.

Anderson says she was acting like “a normal professor” in the days before the shooting.

He also says he and his wife were cleared in the investigation of a pipe bomb sent to one of her former bosses in Massachusetts in 1993.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP’s earlier story is below.

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (AP) — Disclosures that an Alabama professor accused of fatally shooting three colleagues was twice questioned by criminal investigators years ago raised concerns Monday of why background checks didn’t prevent her hiring at the school in 2003.

University of Alabama in Huntsville officials were meeting privately to review the files concerning Amy Bishop, a Harvard-educated neurobiologist accused of pulling a gun at a Friday faculty meeting and shooting six people, three fatally. Two of the survivors remained in critical condition Monday.

More

Continue Reading

A tragic story of workplace violence hits on Friday.  Three faculty members have been killed and three others wounded after a biology professor opened fire inside University of Alabama-Huntsville Friday.  As we entered the weekend more about Amy Bishop’s past began to surface.  From killing her brother with a shotgun twenty years ago to being investigated for a letter bomb at Harvard.

We have written extensively about the lack of proper background checks in schools and universities.  In addition, our soap box has been crushed over the past year from our almost weekly rants on preventing workplace violence.  Our current white paper on workplace violence has become a target for web searchers and has become one of our top searched stories on EmployeeScreen University.

What does this all mean?  Schools, Colleges and Universities really need to step up their screening process.  This is the second major story on workplace violence in the past few months. (Remember the Yale story?)   Would a typical background check have uncovered this tainted past? Its very hard to say because there was no actual conviction.  However, reference checks may have lead them in the right direction!

Ala. prof bemoaned tenure denial, quiet about past

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. – Amy Bishop kept quiet about a violent episode in her past around colleagues and students at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. But there was one personal issue she didn’t mind loudly complaining about: being denied tenure.

Still, those who knew her said the woman accused of shooting six colleagues had never suggested she might become violent. Everyone from family and friends to her students said the intelligent and at times awkward teacher seemed normal in the hours before police say she opened fire in a faculty meeting Friday afternoon, leaving three dead and three wounded.

Investigators have declined to discuss a motive, but Bishop didn’t hide her displeasure over the fact she’d been denied tenure — a type of job-for-life security afforded to academics.

Bishop was up front about the issue, often bringing it up in meetings where the subject wasn’t appropriate, said William Setzer, chairman of the department of chemistry.

“In committee meetings, she didn’t pretend that it wasn’t happening or anything,” Setzer said. “She was even loud about it: That they denied her tenure and she was appealing it, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.”

More

Continue Reading