What can we expect for background screening in 2011

As 2010 draws to a close, we can take a look back on what has been quite a significant year in the background screening industry, and a look forward at what promises to be another challenging year ahead. The pre-employment background screening industry finds itself in a very different position than it was in this time last year, for both job seekers and employers – why and how has this happened, and what’s going to happen next?

The two main changes we have seen are the ever-increasing widespread use of background checks when it comes to making hiring decisions, and the role credit checks should play in this process. There are a variety of reasons as to why more and more employers are now understanding the importance of a background check – primarily to protect their employees from violence and to protect themselves from being liable should violence occur. Furthermore, in this difficult economy, some job seekers are providing false information on their applications in the hope they will get work, and background checks are one way of validating claims that are made.

In regards to credit checks, in the last year there has been a lot of debate over whether they should be included in a background screening – does you personal financial situation affect your ability to fulfill your job responsibilities? Some states have argued yes and already incorporated this into their legislation.

2011 is sure to bring many surprises – there will be a fair share of both political and economic issues that will affect the background screening industry. I think you can expect to see even more severe measures to ensure that these checks are enforced across all areas of society, as well as continued debate regarding what exactly should be in a background check. Furthermore, it is my belief that stories of suffering and consequences due to organizations failing to complete background checks on staff will be embellished and brought to the public’s attention – if only to re-enforce the importance of background screening.

It will be interesting to look back at this post in a years time and see whether these predictions are correct. Is there anything I have missed? What are your thoughts on how the pre-employment background screening industry will evolve over the next 12 months?

Worker loses job due to false background screening information

Kevin Hutchinson, 32, of North Philadelphia, is one of many job-seekers out there, keen to be part of the workforce but suffering due to the current economic climate. Unfortunately for him, Hutchinson has recently fallen victim to what some experts say is a disturbing consequence of background screening – erroneous information gathered by careless or unscrupulous data brokers.

Having been convicted for simple assault, harassment and related offenses years ago, he was sure to put it on his job application in September at GameStop. So he was stunned when, after getting the job and working for a month, his manager called him into his office and asked if anything was on his record that he hadn’t disclosed.

“He said, ‘If there was, would you be surprised?’ ” Hutchinson recalled. “I told him I’d be shocked, and a few minutes later, they fired me for nondisclosure of information.” Hutchinson said he repeatedly asked whether he was being fired for the 2002 charges. He said his manager emphatically told him, “No,” but refused to tell him why he was being fired. Hutchinson said he never received a copy of his background check or a termination letter from GameStop.

Through another job application, he found out that a background check on him said he had been convicted in 1996 of felony cocaine possession in Gloucester County, Va., and sentenced to 10 years in prison. “I have never even been to Gloucester County, Va.,” Hutchinson said. “Back then, I was still in high school.”

After receiving the report, Hutchinson called GIS to dispute the information. More than two weeks later, the company cleared his criminal-background check of the false felony-cocaine charge, according to GIS records he received. On his own, Hutchinson had his fingerprints taken at the Pennsylvania State Police’s Belmont Barracks and sent them to the Virginia State Police to demonstrate that he was not the man on their records, he said. “GIS said they dealt with it, but I didn’t want to leave any stone unturned,” he said.

GameStop, where Hutchinson said the bosses knew about his misdemeanors when they hired him, refused to hire him back after the felony-cocaine charge was cleared. “They told me I had to reapply to see if I could get another position with the company,” he said. “Why should I have to reapply when you let me go off of false pretenses? You didn’t even give me a chance to explain.” This left Hutchinson once again unemployed, and feeling let down by organizations and processes that are there to protect, not punish, members of society.

Unfortunately, for Lillie Coney, associate director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, D.C., Hutchinson’s is a familiar story. “Background checks are pretty routine now, even for positions that don’t require trust that they manage money or things of value,” she said. “There’s no way to know that the error rates are not off the charts.”

Coney said many people may never know about an inaccurate background check, especially if an employer never gave them a copy. If a person never got a job, he or she simply may have assumed that someone else was more qualified, she said. “For every one person you hear this happens to, there may be thousands of people who don’t know this happens,” she said. “This the worst-case scenario because you’re not going to be brought to trial to argue your innocence because you’ve already been found guilty and you don’t even know it.”

What can we learn from this? For job-seekers, be sure to follow up on your job applications; for employers – find yourself a reliable background screening company, and understand that such human errors do sometimes occur.

Women stole background check information

Four women have been arrested on accusations they stole background check information, and used it to make personal profit. Angela Cuellar, 32; Yolanda Ramos, 38; Diane Rivera, 33, and Christine Elifritz, 29, were indicted by a federal grand jury on one count of conspiracy to commit identity theft. Cuellar is also charged with six substantive aggravated identity theft counts; Elifritz and Ramos are also charged with one aggravated identity theft count.

In a five month period – between March and July 2008 – Cuellar was employed by Integrated Biometrics Technology in Waco, where applicants provide personal information, such as social security numbers and dates of birth. She allegedly stole thousands of background check applications when she left the company, and the four women then used them to fraudulently obtain credit cards, open accounts, and purchase goods.

The women could face up to 15 years in prison – and this should serve as a warning to all those who have access to others personal information. You are in a position of trust when this type of information is available to you, and to betray that trust is unjustifiable. A harsh sentence should be a sufficient message to others who face similar temptations.

Women suing school for performing credit check

A woman is suing the University of Miami after her job offer at the college’s medical school was revoked due to bad credit found on a background check. The topic of credit checks and the role they should play in pre-employment background checks is one we are hearing a lot about recently, and some are hoping that this case will help ban employers from using credit histories in hiring decisions.

Apparently the woman’s application was accepted, only to be revoked when she was notified that a car repossession and defaulted student loan found on her credit report during a background check disqualified her from the job, “even after she had been through several interviews and apparently had the right experience for that job”.

In addition, the woman filing the suit is African-American and this case serves as evidence to the belief of some that the use credit reports by employers discriminates against minority job applicants, since more Latinos and blacks are unemployed than whites and unemployment is often the reason people cannot pay their bills. The lawsuit is pending in court.

The outcome of this story will be of interest to many – both employers and job seekers. Should credit checks be part of a background screening? Or does someone’s personal financial situation have no reflection their ability to perform a job?

Background check provides false information for Tennessee job-seeker

A man in Tennessee had to prove he wasn’t a criminal, after his background check stated he was. Michael Ray Brown’s background was delved into by Sterling Infosystems, a company used by temporary agency Pro Logistics to check for possible criminal histories of prospective employees. He had applied for a job at Rich Products Corporation and could not understand why no one called him back about the job.

“I had applied through the temp to hire company and happened to call the gentleman back when I hadn’t heard anything about the job for a while and he told me that I had failed my background check,” said Brown, who is 34. “I said, no, that can’t be possible because I’ve never been in any kind of trouble.”

“What they (Sterling representatives) were telling me was that I had gotten in trouble in Memphis,” Brown said. “I contacted the (Shelby County) court clerk’s office and they said they had a Michael Brown in the system. They checked my social security number and date of birth against the one in their system and it turned out to be an entirely different person — that Michael Brown was born in 1958.”

After unsuccessfully trying to resolve this issue with the background screening organization, Brown seeked out assistance with his problem from the Rutherford County Sheriff’s Office. Detective Steve Brown ran an “FBI Criminal History” check on Michael Brown and found he had no red marks on his record.

With this information, Brown was able to clear his name, but questions how many other people have been denied a job due to false information in a background check.

Oregan background screening and credit checks

We’re all aware of the debates going on in almost every state regarding credit checks, and the role they should play in employment background screening. For those in Oregon, here’s a closer look at the changes that have been discussed and what you can expect in 2011…

Purpose and Scope

(1) It is the policy of the State of Oregon to guarantee individuals the fullest possible participation in the social and economic life of the state, including employment. Obtainment or use by an employer of information in an applicant’s credit history impacts the individual’s privacy, and must relate only to the position for which the individual is being considered or holds. The people of Oregon have the right to employment without unlawful discrimination on the basis of credit history.

(2) Prohibited discrimination is a basis of unlawful practices described in ORS chapter 659A and other chapters of the Oregon statutes.

(3) Any individual claiming to be aggrieved by an unlawful practice including a violation of OL 2010, Ch. 102 may file a complaint under ORS 659A.820 or may bring a civil action under ORS 659A.885.

(4) The Civil Rights Division of the Bureau of Labor and Industries enforces Oregon Law 2010, Chapter 102 (OL 2010, Ch. 102). These rules implement and interpret OL 2010, Ch. 102.

Stat. Auth.: OL 2010, Ch. 102(5), ORS 659A.805
Stats. Implemented: OL 2010, Ch. 102

(1) “Applicant” means an individual who has submitted information for the purpose of gaining employment.

(2) “Credit history” means any written or other communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency that bears on a consumer’s creditworthiness, credit standing or credit capacity.

(3) “Division” means the Civil Rights Division of the Bureau of Labor and Industries.

(4) “Employer” means any person who in this state, directly or through an agent, engages or uses the personal service of one or more employees, reserving the right to control the means by which such service is or will be performed.

(5) “Respondent” includes any person against whom a complaint or charge of unlawful practices is filed with the division or whose name has been added to such complaint or charge pursuant to ORS 659A.835(1).

(6) “Substantially job-related” is defined in OAR 839-005-0080.

Stat. Auth.: OL 2010, Ch. 102(5), ORS 659A.805
Stats. Implemented: OL 2010, Ch. 102

Unlawful Discrimination

(1) It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to obtain or use for employment purposes information contained in the credit history of an applicant for employment or an employee, or to refuse to hire, discharge, demote, suspend, retaliate or otherwise discriminate against an applicant or an employee with regard to promotion, compensation or the terms, conditions or privileges of employment based on information in the credit history of the applicant or employee.

(2) Obtainment or use of credit history information may not be conducted in a manner that results in adverse impact discrimination as prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, ORS 659A.030 and OAR 839-005-0010. A finding of adverse impact discrimination does not require establishment of intentional discrimination.

(3) OL 2010, Ch. 102 permits an employer to obtain or use for employment purposes information contained in the credit history of an applicant or employee under circumstances described at OL 2010, Ch. 102(2). OL 2010(2)(d) permits an employer to obtain or use information contained in the credit history of an applicant or employee if the credit history information is substantially job-related, and the employer’s reasons for the use of such information are disclosed to the employee or prospective employee in writing.

(a) The burden of proving the employer’s disclosure to the employee of its reasons for the use of such information rests with the employer.

Stat. Auth.: OL 2010, Ch. 102(5), ORS 659A.805
Stats. Implemented: OL 2010, Ch. 102

Substantially Job-Related

(1) The determination of whether credit history information is substantially job-related must be evaluated with respect to the position for which the individual is being considered or holds.

(2) Credit history information of an applicant or employee is substantially job-related if:

(a) An essential function of the position at issue requires access to financial information
not customarily provided in a retail transaction that is not a loan or extension of credit;

(A) Financial information customarily provided in a retail transaction includes
information related to the exchange of cash, checks and credit or debit card numbers; or

(b) The position at issue is one for which an employer is required to obtain credit history
as a condition of obtaining insurance or a surety or fidelity bond.

Stat. Auth.: OL 2010, Ch. 102(5), ORS 659A.805
Stats. Implemented: OL 2010, Ch. 102

Enforcement & Retaliation

(1) An employer’s duties and obligations under OL 2010, Ch. 102 extend to an employer that is a successor in interest as defined in OAR 839-005-0014.

(2) An applicant or employee claiming a violation of OL 2010, Ch. 102 or these rules may file a complaint with the Civil Rights Division of the Bureau of Labor and Industries in the manner provided by ORS 659A.820.

(3) An applicant or employee claiming a violation of OL 2010, Ch. 102 may bring a civil action under ORS 659A.885.

(4) Pursuant to ORS 659A.030(1)(f), it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discharge, expel or otherwise discriminate against any person because the person has filed a complaint, testified or assisted in any proceeding in connection with OL 2010, Ch. 102.

(5) Pursuant to ORS 659A.030(1)(g), it is an unlawful employment practice for any person, whether an employer or an employee, to aid, abet, incite, compel or coerce the doing of any of the acts in violation of OL 2010, Ch. 102, or to attempt to do so.

Stat. Auth.: OL 2010, Ch. 102(5), ORS 659A.805
Stats. Implemented: OL 2010, Ch. 102

Background check reveals doctor ‘faked it’ for 15 years

A background check ended a 15-year charade by a man who claimed to be a doctor. During his time working in Royal Oak, Michigan, he lined up federal grants and even trained hospital staff without having any of the medical credentials he had claimed in his resume.

The Detroit Press claims a staffer at Beaumont Hospital found it suspicious that William Hamman, 58, was able to secure millions of dollars in research grants, fees and salaries yet never treated patients nor applied for physician admitting privileges at the facility. When confronted with the check, Hammond resigned as medical director of Beaumont’s medical simulation and research program.

Apparently Hamman’s resume was not vetted by either the hospital’s medical administration nor human resources departments, according to hospital spokeswoman Colette Stimmell. This facade is an embarrassment to Beaumont Hospital, who allowed an untrained individual to work in such a precocious environment for so long.

It should serve as a clear reminder to all businesses as to why background checks are so important, and why you shouldn’t cut corners when it comes to screening potential employees.

Massachusetts CORI reform

As a leader in pre-employment background screening, MYB knows the importance of passing on news and information to the public as soon as we hear about it. Here is an update regarding Massachusetts background check changes in policy:

On August 6, 2010, Governor Patrick signed into law a reform measure that makes significant changes to the Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) law applicable to all employers that employ persons in Massachusetts. CORI is a system many Massachusetts employers use in background screening to access criminal conviction information pertaining to employees and applicants. Among other things, the law creates a new Department of Criminal Justice Information Services (Department) in the Executive Office of Public Safety to take over past functions of the Criminal History Systems Board.

The changes in the CORI law generally apply to the use of all criminal background information, regardless of whether the information was obtained from CORI or a third party, such as a credit reporting agency. Most significantly to employers, the CORI amendments will:

- Prohibit employers from asking applicants about their criminal background in the written application for employment.
- Require employers to provide copies of criminal records to the applicant prior to questioning the applicant about those records.
- Limit the scope of information available on a CORI report 2 to the following:
1. felony convictions that are less than ten years old
2. misdemeanor convictions that are less than five years old
3. currently pending criminal charges
- Restrict the sharing of criminal conviction information to individuals within the requesting entity that have a need to know the contents of the criminal offender record information to serve the purpose for which the information was obtained.
- The original requester must maintain a “secondary dissemination log” for a period of one year following the dissemination, which must include:
1. the name of the subject of the criminal offender record information
2. the date of birth of the subject
3. the date of the dissemination
4. the name of the person to whom it was disseminated
5. the purpose of the dissemination. Secondary dissemination
(Logs are subject to review and audit by the Department).
- Require employers destroy certain records of criminal convictions within a certain period of time following the decision not to hire or the termination of employment.
- Unless otherwise required by law, if an employer obtains criminal history records from the Department, those records, including any copies thereof, electronic or otherwise, may not be maintained for more than seven years following either: (1) the last date of the subject’s employment or volunteer service; or (2) the date of the final decision of the requestor not to hire or otherwise utilize the applicant.
- Require employers who conduct five or more criminal background investigations a year, whether criminal offender record information is obtained from the Department or from any other source (including a third party credit reporting agency), to maintain a written CORI policy.

This policy must include a statement that the employer will:
• notify the applicant of the potential adverse decision based on the criminal offender record information
• provide a copy of the criminal offender record information and the policy to the applicant; and
• provide information concerning the process for correcting a criminal record.

Information regarding correcting a criminal record can be found on CORI’s website, www.mass.gov/chsb. The state promises to provide additional guidance regarding the CORI policy on its website, including at which point during the hiring process the policy must be provided to the applicant.

Significantly, the new laws also provide that as long as an employer complies with CORI restrictions and makes a hiring decision within 90 days of obtaining the CORI information, it will be protected from:
- any negligent hiring claim “by reason of relying solely on criminal offender record information received from the [Department] and not performing additional criminal history background checks, unless required to do so by law”
- any discrimination claim for the failure to hire a person on the basis of criminal offender record information that contains erroneous information requested and received from the Department “if the employer would not have been liable if the information had been accurate.”

Employers should not delay in drafting a new CORI policy and training HR personnel to comply with the new requirements.

Humane society thanks MYB for donation

What shows up in a background check

So what actually shows up in a background check? Well this depends on a variety of factors – primarily, who is performing the background check and what information they are trying to obtain. Seeing as this is a blog for pre-employment background screening, that is what we’ll focus on in this post. Let’s take a look at the five main parts of an employment background check:

Education History

It is likely that a background check run on you prior to employment will delve into your educational past. The main reason behind this is to validate the information you provided in your application. So as mentioned in a previous post, be honest in the claims you make about the schools you went to and the results you obtained.

Criminal Records

You can be sure that a potential employer will check out your criminal past. Any felonies, misdemeanors or outstanding warrants will show up, so it’s best to be truthful about this during the application process.

Past Employment History

Obviously, it’s important for an employer to know that you will be a reliable, trustworthy and hard-working employee. So they will likely speak to the references you provided or the previous employers you list on your resume.

Social Security Number Records Check

This is a potential part of a pre-employment background check, and will verify that you are who you say you are.

Sex-Offender Database Check

This will check whether you have ever been convicted of a sex crime or offense before, and is particularly significant when there is a potential to work with vulnerable members of society, such as the elderly, disabled or children.

There we have a short synopsis of the main parts of a pre-employment background check. As mentioned at the start, the precise checks performed will depend on the job you are applying for, the company hired to do the checks and a number of other factors. However, hopefully this gives you an insight into what you might expect.