by Jason Morris

This morning I came across another article regarding new public access rules developed by the Oklahoma Supreme Court.  employeescreenIQ and many members of the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS) are working hard to reverse this decision before June when it takes effect.  Background check results would be severely impacted if this policy stands.

Court’s new record policy would affect background screening business

By M. Scott Carter

Transcript Staff Writer

OKLAHOMA CITY — New public access rules developed by the Oklahoma Supreme Court would make it more difficult for companies that do prehiring background checks, officials with those companies said this week.

by Nick Fishman

It would seem that the Florida Department of Children & Families has a nightmare on their hands. They hired a spokesman for the organization that was recently arrested on Child Pornography charges, as documented by the Orlando Sentinal in their article DCF reviewing background check policy after spokesman’s arrest.

The state agency said that a background check was conducted and did not reveal conviction records from the state of Texas which focused on writing bad checks. They said if they had known about these records, it might have affected their decision to hire this individual. My guess is that the state didn’t conduct a thorough check, however it could have been much worse. Based on this report, it doesn’t seem to indicate that this individual had prior records related to sex crimes or child pornography.

The importance of conducting a county criminal record search in each county where the applicant has lived, worked or attended school cannot be understated. The article doesn’t indicate that these offenses occurred in counties where the individual resided, but I think it’s a safe assumption. If he didn’t the state would be claiming the they conducted a thorough check and wouldn’t be reevaluating their procedures.

by Jason Morris

In the past my articles have centered around industry issues and identity theft. I just came across this article on Yahoo and thought it was very interesting. I think this type of case could make it to the U.S. Supreme court as it could have ADA and possible EEOC implications. Obviously, drug screening and substance abuse testing in the workplace is a hot issue today and certainly a service offered by employeescreenIQ. My passion for this particular issue could be argued on both sides. I am a strong supporter for substance abuse testing in the workplace but also understand and support the Americans with Disabilities Act. I am not sure where this one will go, but it will be an interesting ride nonetheless.

Medical Marijuana users can be fired: California Supreme Court

By Adam Tanner Thu Jan 24, 6:14 PM ET

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Companies can fire employees who use marijuana for medical reasons even if California law allows such use because federal law prohibits it, the state’s Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.

“Under California law, an employer may require preemployment drug tests and take illegal drug use into consideration in making employment decisions,” Justice Kathryn Werdegar wrote.

More

by Nick Fishman

If your company conducts background checks on applicants in the state of Connecticut, state Substitute Senate Bill No. 1089 Public Act No. 07-243 affects you. Effective January 1, 2008 all Consumer Reporting Agencies (Background Screeners) must confirm criminal records found on those in the state of Connecticut (on a site provided by the state) before they can be reported to the employer. The CRA must also notify the subject of the report about the presence of the records being reported.

I am guessing that this is the state’s way of slapping the hands of those that utilize commercial databases as the sole means of searching for criminal records and, or those that perform shoddy background checks. I come to this conclusion, because if you are performing on-site record searches and validating the records you find (the best practice method), this requirement is a redundant step. Because databases can contain arrest records, expunged records and can even reveal records that do not belong to the subject of a report unless the required authentication takes place an employer could be using information it should not be in the decision process.

To view the full version of this statute click on the link below:

Connecticut Substitute Senate Bill No. 1089 Public Act No. 07-243

FYI, the site that the state is supposed to be operating in was not up and running at the time of this post 1/14/08 (14 days after the law took affect).

by Nick Fishman

If you live in the state of Ohio and want to be a dentist, veterinarian, marriage therapist, dietitian or an embalmer state lawmakers just passed House Bill 104 mandating a criminal background check. Seems like a good idea. However, the same lawmakers didn’t think it was a good idea to subject themselves to the same requirement.

Check out “State lawmakers: No criminal checks on us” as published in yesterday’s Columbus Dispatch. This would be a funny story if it weren’t actually true.

by Nick Fishman

As we’ve discussed a number of times in the past, there are a number of restrictions, recommendations, guidelines, etc. about how to use a credit report when making a hiring decision. We found these guidelines on the Ohio Civil Rights Newsletter from October. They are worth the read if you currently utilize or are considering utilizing credit reports for your hiring decisions in the state of Ohio. The following paragraph taken from the newsletter give you the gist:

by Nick Fishman

You might recall a couple recent posts where I respectfully disagreed with Ohio State Senator Shirley Smith’s proposed legislation that would allow some serious felonies convictions to be expunged from individual’s records. This was Senator Smith’s way of addressing the issue of those with convictions being excluded from jobs and the increase in recidivism rates when employment cannot be found.

That is a serious issue and one that deserves proper consideration. However, as I said before, inhibiting potential employers’ ability to make an informed decision is no way to address this problem. If such a measure was adopted, an employer that conducts background checks wouldn’t see the expunged conviction.

I was scheduled to meet with Ohio State Senator Lance Mason last week to discuss our concerns about this bill last week and I was looking forward to blogging about some of the ideas I had already discussed with his staffers. Unfortunately, Senator Mason had to cancel the meeting (it was for a very good personal reason). We are going to reschedule, but rather than wait for the meeting, I thought it would be nice to share one of Senator Mason’s remedies to this problem as relayed through his staffers.

Senator Mason believes that one such way to remedy the issue of re-entry into the workforce is to introduce tax credits to those that hire former convicts. I happen to believe that this idea has merit and am impressed with his ability to introduce a solution that serves all interests. I don’t know how it would be paid for, but in concept it doesn’t punish employers by keeping them in the dark about the people it hires and creates a way to get those who wish to enter the workforce after a criminal conviction to do so without having to lie on job applications or be fearful that past transgressions will automatically eliminate them from all employment opportunities.

This effort by Senator Smith is one we commonly see duplicated throughout the country. And in most cases, the intention is to make sure former convicts have a fair chance at assimilating back into their communities and can become productive memebers of society. These are honorable intentions. However, the ideas that Senator Mason has seem to strike a delicate balance of serving all parties involved.

by Jason Morris

I found this story very interesting and a great tie-in for background checks.

CHARLOTTE, Tenn. - A Dickson County woman wanted by police turned out to be the real victim.

Police arrested Brandi King for allegedly failing to appear in Maury County court on a shoplifting charge.

More

by Nick Fishman

As posted on Xtra Cheezhead earlier this week.

Okay, so Michael Vick, former quarterback of the Atlanta Falcons sends you his resume to become your next Latex Salesman (I finally get to use a Seinfeld reference). Let’s say you have been living under a rock for the last few years and you don’t know who he is. You decide to conduct a background check. What will you find? That all depends on where you look. Up until last week, the only charges filed against Vick related to his involvement in a dog fighting ring were in Federal Court. He has pleaded guilty, so let’s say for the sake of argument that the Federal Court has appropriately updated their system. In order to find this conviction, you would have had to conduct a Federal District Criminal Search. A County Court Record Search would not identify this particular conviction. Now, separate charges have since been filed in Surrey County, VA. A conviction has not occurred so while you might be able to find the charges by performing a County Criminal Record Search in Surry County, you would just see a pending case. In most states you can use a pending case in the hiring decision. In some states, you cannot (another topic for another post).

The view the rest of this post, please click on the link below.
http://www.cheezhead.com/xtra/2007/10/01/celebrity-hires-provide-lessons-in-background-checks/

by Nick Fishman

We are happy to announce that the clerk strike that we reported about yesterday in Santa Cruz County, California has been successfully resolved.