by Jason Morris

Historically educators saw their profession as a “gentleman’s profession” held to a higher standard than others.  Above suspicion, they felt background checks were below them and insulted by the gesture.  We have seen similar stories as recent as last month.  This article shows tremendous support for the practice and an acknowledgment of previous fears.  We know there is a requirement of accuracy under the FCRA, apparently one experience in their forum was less than stellar.

An article from the Chronicle of Higher Education

Criminal-Background Checks: An article from the Chronicle of Higher Education

Criminal-background and credit checks are becoming a common element of faculty and administrative searches. Many states, and an increasing number of private colleges, are requiring background checks prior to or as part of job offers. My university added them this year, and thus we have been navigating in new waters as we deal with candidates during the offer process.

A certain amount of griping has ensued. One of the clearest vestiges of academe’s history as a “gentleman’s profession” is the idea that we, as academics and holders of advanced degrees, are somehow above suspicion, and thus requiring a background check is insulting and degrades us as professionals. That sentiment is certainly understandable, as the presence of a background check is prima facie evidence that candidates are not being taken at their word.

The paradox, of course, is that only those whose word is not good get caught by a background check. I have been around long enough to know about cases where an impostor has gotten an academic job (easily avoided by the now almost-universal requirement for official transcripts sent directly to the employing institution) or where someone with a criminal record has been hired.

In today’s litigious atmosphere — and, more important, as part of our obligation to students, parents, and other constituencies — transcripts and background checks are a fair way to avoid potential hiring disasters.

However, there is another side of this issue. When an institution has a policy requiring background checks, that policy entails that whoever performs those checks be held to absolute standards of accuracy. A recent case discussed in The Chronicle’s Forums described a candidate’s experiences being offered a position contingent on a background check which later came back with negative information that led to the withdrawal of the offer. The information turned out to be wrong, and it fell to the candidate to correct the record, supplying numerous documents and affidavits certifying the candidate’s innocence. The offer was then reinstated only to be withdrawn again, apparently by the institution’s human-resources office. Why? Because the candidate had protested the negative finding.

More

by Nick Fishman

Good friend Barry Nixon from the National Institute of Workplace Violence and Kim Kerr from Lexis Nexis (yes, a competitor albeit one who crafted a great web post) just wrote a great article that was published by HR.BLR.com about how to develop a background screening policy for your organization. Readers of this blog might recall the Kim and Barry were kind enough to include a chapter on International Background Screening that was written by employeescreenIQ in their recent book Background Screening and Investigations: Managing Hiring Risk from the HR and Security Perspectives. Please see the lists they developed for implementing a policy and the resulting benefits.

Benefits of Implementing a Background Screening Policy

1. Proactive Management of Risk: Risk management is fundamentally about choosing to accept a risk, mitigating the risk, or reducing the risk, and a background screening policy is a clear step to reduce the organization’s risk.
2. Due Diligence and Legal Compliance: A well-crafted background screening policy will position an organization to exercise due diligence, which ultimately will help it avoid the negative consequences of being out of compliance or breaking the law. This helps the organization avoid unnecessary cost and the distraction of resources to address legal issues.
3. Improve Hiring Processes: Background screening provides for the collection of relevant information and verification of the accuracy of the information, which helps an organization to be equipped to make better hiring decisions.
4. Protection of Information: One of the side benefits of implementing an effective background screening policy is that it forces an organization to pay close attention to how it protects individuals’ personal information, which ultimately reduces the likelihood of the organization having a breach in its data and all of the commensurate problems associated with it.
5. Reduce Cost and Improve Profitability: An organization that proactively manages its risk, avoids costly employee problems and lawsuits, has an efficient hiring process, and protects individual personal data will reduce its cost of operations, thus improving the flow of dollars to the bottom line.

Read the full post here . . .post

by Jason Morris

Does your employment screening firm hold the appropriate licensing in states such as Nevada? There are over twenty (20) states that arguably have Private Investigators licensing laws related to employment screening. Many don’t require you to be licensed if you don’t operate your business or have an office in their state. While others only require you to have a license in the state(s) where you do operate. Nevada is a rare exception. They require screening firms to be licensed by their state if you have any clients there and,or if you are performing any research there. This research could include contacting a University or Employer in Nevada by telephone for a verification. The law in Nevada is very specific:

In Nevada, no unlicensed person may “engage in the business of private investigator” or “advertise his business as such, irrespective of the name or title actually used.” N.R.S. § 648.060. Compliance with the statute and regulations is monitored by the Private Investigator’s Licensing Board (“Board”). N.R.S. § 648.030. The penalties for engaging in the business of private investigator without a license are stiff: (1) a first offense is a misdemeanor; and (2) second or subsequent offenses are gross misdemeanors. N.R.S. § 648.210. Accompanying fines range from $2,500 (first offense) to $10,000 (three or more offenses) per violation. N.R.S. § 648.165. Even a single act of private investigatory work by an unlicensed individual is considered a violation of the statute. N.R.S. § 648.063.

The Nevada board interprets the statute to require that a corporation obtain a license even if it operates through a licensed private investigator with whom it has entered into an independent contractor agreement. When posed with this scenario, a board official stated that the corporation would still be regarded as engaging in investigative activity subject to the licensing requirements. Many States have adopted statues specifically excluding Consumer Reporting Agencies (CRA’s). Ohio, our home state, is a great example:

Ohio Revised Code; Title XLVII, Chapter 4749; § 4749.01. Definitions (H) “Private investigator,” “business of private investigation,” “security guard provider,” and “business of security services” do not include: (3) A consumer reporting agency, as defined in the “Fair Credit Reporting Act,” 84 Stat. 1128, 15 U.S.C.A. 1681a, as amended, provided that the consumer reporting agency is in compliance with the requirements of that act and that the agency’s activities are confined to any of the following: (a) The issuance of consumer credit reports; (b) The conducting of limited background investigations that pertain only to a client’s prospective tenant and that are engaged in with the prior written consent of the prospective tenant; (c) The business of pre-employment background investigation. As used in division (H)(3)(c) of this section, “business of pre-employment background investigation” means, and is limited to, furnishing for hire, in person or through a partner or employees, the conducting of limited background investigations, in-person interviews, telephone interviews, or written inquiries that pertain only to a client’s prospective employee and the employee’s employment and that are engaged in with the prior written consent of the prospective employee.

When doing RFP’s for background screening companies or when you are simply giving your process a “chest x-ray” (Thank you Thomas Friedman - The World is Flat) , be sure to inquire if the proper licensing is in place. While we don’t agree with the law, and either does the industry association NAPBS, we have been unable to challenge it. In 2005, NAPBS did a position paper on the subject. The general consensus was that they agree with PI licensing laws for those in the field of Private Investigations. We don’t believe employment screening should fall under this umbrella. Without getting too technical, PI’s develop information about subjects. CRA’s are given written authority and verify information that is provided. employeescreenIQ is licensed in the state of Nevada to perform Private Investigations and thus Employment Screening. Is your provider?

by Jason Morris

I will not go into a rant about inadequate background checks in our schools, I just won’t.  This story speaks for itself!  Our kids in public schools are being protected by an inadequate, antiquated background screening process.  Most States require a fingerprint check at the State level and a FBI check at the National level, only if the candidate has lived outside that State in the past five years.

They say they don’t have the money, schools are underfunded.  How many kids have to get assaulted before they realize metal detectors are not the only way to protect students.  A thorough criminal check must be done at the county level.

Since schools are the theme of this posting, administrators should read my series; Employment Screening 101.  Schools are just as liable as corporations.  Standing behind the budgetary excuses and doing the minimum required by state law does not stop 15 year old girls from getting sexually abused.  Administrators can start looking forward to negligent hiring lawsuits in the same way Corporate America does; If you could have known, you should have known!

Local drama teacher charged with sexual abuse had sexual assault allegation again him in past

(WHAS11) - We have new information about a Bardstown High School drama teacher arrested along with his wife last week.

Police say Kevin Holladay had an inappropriate relationship with a female student and his wife Marta Holladay was charged with assaulting that student.

Now, we’ve uncovered new information about Kevin Holladay’s past.

We found some information Kevin Holladay probably didn’t want Bardstown schools to know about and because of the way the district currently does background checks it remained his secret. Until we told his former boss about it on Wednesday.

The drama coach, who goes by the name “Campfire Kev”, had his own summer camp experience 11 years ago, one that could have landed him in prison for 20 years.

In July 1997, Kevin Holladay was charged with sexual assault against a child.

According to reports, Holladay was a counselor at a summer camp in Wisconsin, when he allegedly fondled a 13-year-old girl who fell asleep while watching a movie with him.

More

by Nick Fishman

We just published a new White Paper about Violence in the Workplace written by employeescreenIQ president and C.O.O., Jason B. Morris.  This free content provides some research and statistics on workplace violence, recent public incidents and some advice for prevention.

This free information can be downloaded by clicking the link below (hope the basic information we request is a minor inconvenience in exchange for the insightful content):

Violence in the Workplace

by Nick Fishman

Okay.  I’ll be the first to admit, I wasn’t thrilled to hear that the 2008 Annual SHRM Conference would be held in my hometown of Chicago this year.  Give me San Diego or Vegas any day.  But the more I thought about it, the prospect of not having to book yet another flight began to appeal to me.  So, since it’s always about me, I’m on board.  And so is employeescreenIQ!

We’re excited because we are using this conference to educate the marketplace about our most recent endeavor, employeescreen University.  If you haven’t heard about it, now’s your chance to learn about the industry’s first of its kind interactive online community focused on boosting your employment screening “IQ”.

Enough of the shameless plug, now on to the free stuff (translation: what are we giving away to get you to give us your information).  We are giving away employeescreen University T-Shirts and Shoulder Totes.  We’re also raffling off a 42″ Toshiba LCD Television.  If that’s not enough we might even spend some time talking about our unparalleled services and our expertise in the employment screening field.  (Maybe I should have stopped with the TV raffle).

The conference is being held at McCormick Place June 22nd through the 25th.  Please stop by our booth #2153/2154 and say hello.

As an added incentive, feel free to ask for restaurant and hotel recommendations.  I love to eat as much as I love to talk about background checks.  Test me to see which I’m better at.

by Nick Fishman

We found this post on HRResouce.com about U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) enforcement efforts to ensure that employers are hiring legal, documented workers: I-9 Audits Return, Verification Expands.  The post was so informative that we didn’t mind the plug for the author’s services at the bottom.  See excerpt below:

ICE had openly abandoned the use of audits and administrative fines for employers’ technical noncompliance with I-9 procedures on the theory that employers seeking to make money from knowing employment of illegal workers will just build such fines into their cost of doing business. Instead, ICE has focused its limited but rapidly increasing worksite enforcement resources on raids and prosecutions in order to achieve the maximum deterrent effect through well-publicized convictions of managers and companies and seizure of company assets, as well as business interruption losses from removal of large numbers of workers.

These actions are part of a larger no-nonsense enforcement strategy articulated with increasing clarity by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who has started making State of Immigration speeches describing the multifaceted efforts by the department’s various components to rebuild confidence in the government’s willingness and capability to conduct practical immigration enforcement, while working administratively to streamline and expand legal immigration under existing law and continuing to prove the case for more comprehensive reform. “We are not going to have a silent amnesty,” Chertoff has stated.

It’s not new news that ICE’s efforts are gaining momentum and the ball seems to be rolling towards a federal mandate on E-Verify or alternative Electronic I-9 Confirmation programs.  You just wonder if it will ever happen.  Getting the federal government to agree on anything right now is no small task and with upcoming presidential elections, the political landscape could undergo a major shift.  Who knows?  We’ll just wait on the sidelines and keep you informed.

by Jason Morris

Court finds daycare director was sloppy

Howard Levitt, Financial Post  Published: Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Honesty may be the best policy, but as one Saskatchewan employer learned, to its chagrin, not every act of dishonesty justifies dismissal for cause.

Away We Go Childcare required early childhood educators for its new daycare in Melville, Sask. The board of directors proceeded to interview Ashley Berg and instructed Christy Myers, the facility’s director, to offer Berg a job. Myers recognized Berg’s name as a former classmate.

In light of the nature of the position and the potential for liability, the board expected Myers to obtain a criminal record check and keep a copy in the personnel file. Myers instead asked Berg for the document. Berg produced a record showing she had no convictions.

However, the board was left in the dark regarding a few issues: Berg omitted her last employer, Dr. Brass Daycare, from her resume and it was never told about Myers and Berg being classmates.

Shortly after Berg was hired, rumors surfaced about her employment history. A board member told Myers she learned Berg had been fired from Dr. Brass for racial slurs, compromising confidential information, and for an altercation with that facility’s director. Criminal charges allegedly had followed.

Myers assured the board member she would investigate the allegations, but failed to disclose she had previously worked with Berg. Then she investigated by getting Berg’s side of the story and did not follow-up with Dr. Brass. Berg claimed she was verbally assaulted by the director of her former employer and a bouncer at a bar. At ensuing board meetings, Myers did not report her findings. In fact, she recommended Berg fill in while she was on maternity leave.

The rumors eventually reached the rest of the board. Berg then admitted to omitting information from her resume and was terminated for resume fraud. Myers was subsequently fired for breach of trust and conduct unbefitting a director, because the board said she deliberately concealed knowledge of Berg’s employment history, and never reported on the accusations, nor conducted a thorough investigation into them. Myers sued Away We Go Daycare for wrongful dismissal.

by Jason Morris

CORAL GABLES (CBS4) ― Remodeling your home can be noisy, messy and overwhelming. For Coral Gables homeowner Luis Bared, hiring the right contractors meant trusting them with remodeling his front and back yard.

“I did some homework. I don’t hire people off the street,” said Bared.

That homework brought him to servicemagic.com, a website which connects homeowners with what it considers reliable contractors and service professionals. To be listed on the site, they pay referral fees.

But that company advertises that it is now going an extra step forward — make that ten extra steps.

Servicemagic.com claims it conducts a ten point screening process.

“Which includes verification of state-level licensing, general liability insurance, and we run a background check on the business,” said CEO Craig Smith.

We checked out the site and found out they only check licensing at the state level, not at the local level.

Even service Magic’s CEO urges, “it’s still important that the professional produces a copy of their insurance and verification of their license.”

Omar Cabrera knows home improvement. He manages the pro desk at the Pinecrest Home Depot. He says that a criminal background check would be very important.

“If they can go to that extent, it would be incredibly instrumental,” said Cabrera.

Most home improvement companies, like Lowes and Home Depot, do background checks on their own contractors, and knowing that is important to Cabrera.

More

by Natalie Beck

The use of marijuana for medicinal purposes has been a hot topic in recent years. Should doctors be allowed to prescribe marijuana for those with chronic pain? Is this an issue for the federal government to address or should this decision be left up to the states? Many states have already adopted bills either allowing for the use of medical marijuana or little to no criminal penalties resulting from the use of the drug with a valid prescription. In April, Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) introduced H.R. 5842 “The Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act” that will “provide for the medical use of marijuana in accordance with the laws of the various States.” But what you don’t see much of in the news is how this will affect employers should this bill pass and more states adopt a medical marijuana law. This article showcases the great debate between employers and employees in the state of California where in 1996, the use of medical marijuana was legalized. I can certainly see both sides to this issue. This is definitely an issue to keep an eye on in the coming months and years with respect to the employer/employee relationship.

Job security debated for medicinal pot users

By Jim Sanders, Sacramento Bee

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — For west

Californians gave Gary Ross the legal right to smoke medicinal marijuana at home.

But that didn’t keep the Carmichael resident from being fired for doing so.

Ross is at the epicenter of a fight pitting the rights of more than 250,000 medicinal marijuana users against those of business owners.

“It’s insane that someone has to fight so hard to use a medication that a doctor says is best for your treatment,” said Ross, 46.

The issue is not whether workers can be stoned on the job — they can’t — but whether even trace amounts of doctor-approved pot are grounds for firing.

The California Supreme Court ruled against Ross in January, sparking recent legislation to protect the jobs of medicinal users. The court found that California’s medicinal marijuana initiative, passed in 1996, did not address employment.

More