EmployeeScreenIQ Blog

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

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

Sign up now

A quick reminder that today, EmployeeScreenIQ is hosting an Interactive Workplace Violence Roundtable to discuss this growing problem and what companies need to know and what they can do to be part of the solution.  Register for Wednesday, January 20, 2010, 2:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. ET (11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. PT) today!

The special guest panel will include:
•    Kim Wells, Executive Director, Corporate Alliance to End Partner Violence
•    Mark A. Lies II, Partner, Seyfarth Shaw Law Firm
•    Dennis Butler, SPHR, Owner/Consultant, Crossings HR Solutions, LLC (Former Vice President, Workplace Solutions Liz Claiborne, Inc.)
•    W. Barry Nixon, SPHR, President, PreemploymentDirectory.com
•    Bernard S. Dyme, President & CEO, Perspectives Ltd

The topics will include:
•    The roots of workplace violence
•    Why workplace violence has been on the rise
•    Programs employers can implement to better assess and combat workplace violence
•    Liability and litigation stemming from workplace violence incidents

Please join EmployeeScreenIQ and register for Wednesday, January 20, 2010, 2:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. ET (11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. PT).

You can also download your free copy of “Violence in the Workplace” by clicking here.

Continue Reading

EmployeeScreenIQ will host an interactive roundtable of HR and legal experts on Wednesday, January 20 to discuss the growing problem of workplace violence and help companies protect their employees.

Deadly employee shootings have erupted in St. Louis, San Diego and Fort Hood, Texas, yet many organizations continue to be unprepared. Most employers fail to address the problem until after an incident has taken place, according to Jason Morris, chief operating officer of the background screening firm.

“Each year over two million incidents of workplace violence occur in the United States, costing businesses $70 billion annually,” said Morris. “Yet over 70 percent of U.S. companies have no policy or formal program to address employee violence.”

The live webcast will take place Wednesday, January 20, from 2-3 p.m. Eastern Time (11 a.m. – 12 p.m. Pacific Time). Free registration is available at: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/876116937.

Specific topics will include the roots of workplace violence, employer programs that assess and combat workplace violence, and liability and litigation that stem from worker incidents.

The guest panel will include:

- Dennis Butler, SPHR, owner of Crossings HR Solutions, LLC. Butler was previously vice president, workplace solutions at Liz Claiborne, Inc., where he developed and managed several internal programs including workplace safety. He was also part of the team that developed Liz Claiborne’s policy and protocols for domestic violence in the workplace.

- Mark A. Lies II, a partner and workplace violence specialist at the law firm Seyfarth Shaw. His chief practice areas include employment law, occupational safety and health law, as well as counseling and defense of workplace violence threats and incidents requiring involvement with the FBI, Department of Homeland Security and other federal and state agencies. He has also authored several publications on preventing workplace violence.

- W. Barry Nixon is executive director of the National Institute for Prevention of Workplace Violence, Inc., a company that helps organizations launch programs to prevent workplace violence. He serves on a wide variety of national councils and committees that focus on workplace violence prevention. A frequent international speaker, Nixon is the creator of Workplaceviolence911.com and PreemploymentDirectory.com. He has written books and published magazines on workplace violence and employment screening, while also appearing on CBS, NBC, CNN, Wall Street Journal Radio, and more.

- Bernard S. Dyme, president & CEO of Perspectives Ltd., which provides employee assistance programs, managed behavioral healthcare, and management consulting. A frequent author and speaker, Dyme specializes in helping organizations balance cost savings with having a safe, healthy and productive workforce. He consults with business, labor and professional groups on a variety of topics, including strategies for dealing with change and the stress that accompanies it.

- Kim Wells, executive director of the Corporate Alliance to End Partner Violence. The alliance is the only national organization of its kind founded by business leaders and focused on the workplace. She serves on a wide variety of national advisory boards and state commissions, and is an international speaker on topics such as partner violence in the workplace and workplace violence.

EmployeeScreenIQ recently released a white paper titled “Violence in the Workplace,” which can be downloaded by visiting http://www.employeescreen.com/workplace_violence.asp.

Continue Reading

Every year over two million incidents of workplace violence occur in the United States, costing businesses $70 billion a year, including over $64 billion due to lost productivity. Workplace violence includes co-worker violence, customer/client violence, domestic violence and criminal violence per the Bureau of Labor Statistics survey data.

EmployeeScreenIQ is hosting an Interactive Workplace Violence Roundtable to discuss this growing problem and what companies need to know and what they can do to be part of the solution.  Register for Wednesday, January 20, 2010, 2:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. ET (11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. PT) today!

The special guest panel will include:
•    Kim Wells, Executive Director, Corporate Alliance to End Partner Violence
•    Mark A. Lies II, Partner, Seyfarth Shaw Law Firm
•    Dennis Butler, SPHR, Owner/Consultant, Crossings HR Solutions, LLC (Former Vice President, Workplace Solutions Liz Claiborne, Inc.)
•    W. Barry Nixon, SPHR, President, PreemploymentDirectory.com
•    Bernard S. Dyme, President & CEO, Perspectives Ltd

The topics will include:
•    The roots of workplace violence
•    Why workplace violence has been on the rise
•    Programs employers can implement to better assess and combat workplace violence
•    Liability and litigation stemming from workplace violence incidents

Please join EmployeeScreenIQ and register for Wednesday, January 20, 2010, 2:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. ET (11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. PT).

You can also download your free copy of “Violence in the Workplace” by clicking here.

Continue Reading

Did you know that each year over two million incidents of workplace violence occur in the United States, costing businesses $70 billion annually, yet over 70 percent of U.S. companies have no policy or formal program to address employee violence.?

EmployeeScreenIQ has just released a free white paper, “Violence in the Workplace” that offers a road map to identify the warning signs of a potential threat and to diffuse problems before they escalate.

Despite high-profile shootings such as the Fort Hood massacre and other workplace incidents, most employers fail to address the problem until after an incident has taken place.  Too often, workplace violence is regarded as part of the job and little is done to eliminate it.

The article also includes:

The complimentary copy of “Violence in the Workplace” can be downloaded by visiting http://www.employeescreen.com/workplace_violence.asp.

On January 20, 2010, EmployeeScreenIQ will sponsor an online panel discussion about workplace violence, featuring leading experts in the HR industry. For details on speakers and to pre-register, visit https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/876116937.

Continue Reading

Barry Nixon, Executive Director of the National Institute for Prevention of Workplace Violence, Inc. was kind enough to author a guest article for employeescreen University on how employers can assess their risk to workplace violence.  Of course, employment background checks can help on the front end, but check out Barry’s advice and how employers can take steps to evaluate their workplace and prevent such incidents.

Workplace Violence Prevention: Assessing the Risk to Your Business

Over the last two decades, the Department of Labor and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) have provided insightful information on workplace violence fatalities and non-fatal incidents. While these statistical reports have provided essential details, in most cases businesses have not been able to translate them into cogent plans to address this ever-present problem. This article will focus on helping those charged with the responsibility for addressing workplace violence to understand the potential business and financial impact of violence on their work environment.

The impact can be analyzed in four steps:

1. Assessing the risk to the business
2. Identifying the business and financial impact of workplace violence
3. Mitigation approaches to avoid or reduce the risk of incidents occurring
4. Dealing with the aftermath of an incident

This discussion addresses the first step. Let’s start out with a definition of workplace violence:

“Acts of aggression or violence including assaults, threats, disruptive, aggressive, hostile, verbal or emotionally abusive behaviors that generate fear that occur in, or are related to the workplace and entail a real or perceived risk of physical, emotional and/or psychological harm to individuals, or damage to an organization’s resources or capabilities.”

Starting from this definition, let’s turn our attention to the core focus of this article – the financial impact that violence can have on an organization.

Historical data reveals the daunting costs of workplace violence.

• According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, about 500,000 victims of violent crime in the workplace lose an estimated 1.8 million workdays each year. This represents a $55 million impact as a result of loss of productivity and increased healthcare expenses.(1)
• Domestic violence costs businesses approximately $6 billion annually in healthcare costs, lost productivity, and missed work time.(2)
• The average out-of-court settlement for ‘negligence’ litigation is approximately $500,000 and the average jury award is around $3 million.(3)
• For 6 to 18 weeks after an incident, there is a 50% decrease in productivity and a 20% to 40% turnover in employees.(4)

Specific cost figures for a specific workplace violence incident are very tough to get because companies are reluctant to reveal proprietary information and potentially expose imperfections in their operations, safety procedures, and employee practices. Most firms that experience a serious incident will move quickly to minimize the negative publicity and the impact on their business. Their actual costs are likely to be buried in various innocuous-sounding budget entries so that the business can project the image that ‘all is well’ to avoid spooking their customers and shareholders. However, as the historical data indicates, the costs are not small.

More

You might also be interested in a podcast interview we did with Barry last year.  Check it out.

Continue Reading

I thought that this was an interesting case worth looking at out of the state of California, where traditionally employers are held to a higher standard.  Eugene Duffy v. Technicolor Entertainment Services Inc. was a case that alleged negligent retention and supervision after a fellow employee assaulted Mr. Duffy.  The assault took place off company premises, but Mr. Duffy alleged that because the employer knew about past violent threats and verbal attacks made by this employee but did nothing to correct the behavior, they should be held liable.

The court awarded Mr. Duffy over $1 million.  See the article below.  I’m actually a little confused, because while the court awarded Mr. Duffy the money, the article suggests that the court held that the incident didn’t occur within the scope of work.  Maybe the writer got the story wrong.  Let me know if you’ve got a take on this or understanding of what happened.

LOS ANGELES—The workers compensation exclusive remedy provision does not bar an employee’s lawsuit over injuries suffered when a co-worker followed him home and severely beat him, a California appeals court ruled Thursday.

The case of Eugene Duffy vs. Technicolor Entertainment Services Inc. involves a lawsuit alleging negligent retention and supervision after the co-worker assaulted Mr. Duffy in August 2004 as he stepped out of his car.

Mr. Duffy based his allegations of negligent retention and supervision on the theory that Technicolor knew about past violent threats and verbal attacks the co-worker made against employees, yet continued to employ him and failed to discipline him, court records indicate.

In its defense, Technicolor argued that the exclusive remedy rule pre-empted Mr. Duffy’s lawsuit because the attack grew out of, and was incidental to, his employment.

But a jury found that Mr. Duffy’s injuries did not occur within the scope of his employment and that Technicolor’s negligence was a substantial factor in his injuries. It awarded Mr. Duffy more than $1 million.

California’s 2nd District Court of Appeals agreed and awarded costs to Mr. Duffy. The appeals court said that Mr. Duffy’s injuries occurred after his work ended and he was not performing any service to further his employer’s business.

See full story

Continue Reading