The Shocking Revelation of an HR Manager Gone Rogue

Fired from work close up. Human resources concept

The job title of human resource manager is generally synonymous with terms like trustworthy, ethical, fair, credible and an advocate for employees of an organization. It seems nearly inconceivable to associate human resource professionals with behaviors such as fraud and theft. For many organizations, trusting their HR staff to recruit, screen, and manage thorough human resource processes for the company is paramount. HR professionals typically have access to employees’ personal and confidential information, such as performance reviews, salary data and health records.  As a background screening company, it is typical for the staff at First Contact HR (FCHR) to provide decision-support to its clients when the facts do not add up.

Recently a company sourced and hired a human resource manager for one of their office locations from an employment agency. The agency had a stated policy on its website that it performed background investigations on all their contracted staff. As a result, the company decided not to duplicate efforts by performing their own background check of the new hire. Had this particular company ran their own background investigation during the onboarding process of this individual, they would have discovered inconsistencies with some of the credentials provided during the hiring process by the employee.

Shortly after hiring the HR professional, the company began receiving troubling information related to the identity of the new employee. The company’s Corporate HR team received a call from a state unemployment agency requesting information on an individual who applied for unemployment. To the company’s surprise, it was for their newly hired, HR manager. The company responded to the agency by stating that the HR manager was still employed with their organization, however several days later received a call from the same state unemployment agency requesting they provide identification data on the new employee.

The agency had reason to believe that the newly hired employee was not who they claimed to be. With growing suspicion, the company opted to conduct their own background check (through First Contact HR). During this process, a number of inconsistencies became evident, including significant discrepancies with the applicant’s academic and past employment verifications.

It was soon discovered that the HR manager in question was in fact working under another person’s identity. The state unemployment agency called and instructed the identity fraud victim to contact the company where the perpetrator worked. It turns out the identity assumed by the soon-to-be-fired HR manager was none other than and their former colleague. The company’s newly hired HR manager had stolen this person’s identity to hide a very lengthy criminal past. Once First Contact HR obtained the true identity of the HR manager, a full investigation was conducted and unveiled a habitual criminal past of identity theft, fraud, and other egregious crimes.

The company’s corporate executives decided to press charges, and the employee was arrested.

When it comes to hiring, no employee – regardless of socioeconomic status, education level, career level or background – is exempt from unethical behavior. It is in your company’s best interest to run thorough and comprehensive background checks on all new employees. Be sure to keep in mind that when working with employment agencies, you request proof of a background check prior to hiring an individual. It is also recommended to conduct periodic audits of the background screening practices of the employment agencies you use.

Twitter del.icio.us Digg Facebook linked-in Yahoo Buzz StumbleUpon

Steps to Follow When Making an Adverse Employment Decision

 

On occasion, employers must make the difficult decision to withdraw a job offer or terminate employment based on the results of a background check report. As a best practice and to fully comply with local, state and federal laws, the following steps are recommended.

Making an Adverse Employment Decision
Determine whether the criminal record or discrepancy in the background screening report will present an unacceptable business risk or impact the person’s ability to meet the expectations of the job. Consider the relevancy of the crime to the job requirements, for instance a “driving while intoxicated” violation may have no impact on an office job where driving is not required. Review the severity of the crime, such as misdemeanor versus felony and; the time that has passed since the crime was committed (e.g.,1 versus 15 years ago).

Individualized Assessment
Once a decision has been made to withdraw the job offer or terminate employment, it is best to contact the person as quickly as possible. Let them know the results of the background screening report, and give them the opportunity to explain any perceived discrepancy. If there is evidence that there is erroneous data in the report or other mitigating circumstances, tell them you will re-evaluate the data. If the report is accurate, state that you will be withdrawing the offer or terminating their employment.

Pre-Adverse Action Notice
Let the person know that you will be sending them a pre-adverse action letter. This will give them the opportunity to contact First Contact HR directly if they believe the background screening report is incorrect. This letter will also provide them with a copy of the background screening report, and a summary of their rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Adverse Action Letter
After waiting seven (7) days, you should send an adverse action letter, which confirms that you made the final decision to either withdraw the job offer or terminate employment.

Changes in Law
Generating pre-adverse and adverse action letters are generally easy and straight-forward. Many  organizations utilize a template or an automated process for inserting the subject data into the letters. However, recent changes in laws for some jurisdictions require that for pre-adverse and adverse action notices an employer provide specific information relating to the reasons they are making an employment decision or other documents or information be provided. In these cases, employers will need to customize the letters for each subject in the following jurisdictions to ensure compliance with local laws: CA, MA, NJ, Seattle (WA), Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties (MD), Philadelphia (PA), Portland (OR), Austin (TX), Chicago (IL) and New York City (NY).

Twitter del.icio.us Digg Facebook linked-in Yahoo Buzz StumbleUpon

An Inside Look at Properly Conducting a Background Check (Part 1)

00013790In 2014, nearly 90% of all employers performed some sort of background screening on potential job applicants.[1]  The industry really began booming after 9/11 in an effort to, among other things, ensure workplace safety and protect companies from lawsuits for negligent hiring. Unfortunately, many background screening companies are transactional in nature and work within a “big box” mentality, which leads to increased quantity of screens but with a decreased quality review and follow-up.  Recently, one of these larger background screening companies was successfully sued for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), having misidentified an individual on two separate occasions as a convicted felon. Because of these mistakes, that individual lost two job opportunities.  According to court documents, the large screening company failed to follow its own procedures pertaining to persons with common names and failed to implement a practice with respect to individuals previously misidentified. The background investigators also failed to utilize publicly available information which would have led them to discover that – in one instance – the man they identified as the job applicant was actually in jail at the time the actual applicant applied for the position.  Although this individual won in court and received a hefty award from the jury, the outcome of similar situations is often times less satisfying, and the burden unfortunately falls on the job applicant to “clear his good name.”

Here’s an inside look at properly conducting an employment background check by an HR Investigator at a reputable background screening firm.

Upon running a criminal background check with a name and date of birth provided by the job applicant, a serious sex offense was discovered. However, the names did not match up and the middle initial of the job applicant matched only the first name of the convicted sex offender. Additional research led the HR Investigator to discover several alias names, one of which matched the applicant, with a matching date of birth.  The sex offender registry listed an address that, although similar, did not match with the information the applicant provided.  Rather than giving up, the HR Investigator grew resourceful. She forwarded a copy of the sex offender’s photo from the registry website to the client and asked them to confirm whether it was their applicant or not. Sure enough, the convict and the job applicant were the same person.  These extra steps positively identified a rapist who went out of his way to avoid detection, including providing an invalid zip code. Had the HR Investigator run the sex offender search and nothing more, this applicant’s record would have been returned as clean, and the client may have made a hiring decision without critical information about the applicant’s character and past crimes. This situation can easily happen when background checks are run by inexperienced in-house staff, or when the background screening firm relies totally on technology to push data to its clients or end users without properly reviewing the results.

Our advice to employers is simple: properly conducting the background screening PROCESS is critical. A bad hire can lead to theft, violence, high turnover, or unqualified staff. If information is simply pushed through in an effort to add one more transaction to the company books, without any quality control measures, you may want to get yourself a good lawyer… or a better background screening company.

 

 

[1]http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/background-checks-make-mistakes-applicants-left-little-recourse/

Twitter del.icio.us Digg Facebook linked-in Yahoo Buzz StumbleUpon

Affirmative Action Plan: Is Your Organization Required to Have One?

Recent news of the United States Supreme Court’s Affirmative Action ruling sheds light on the importance of having an Affirmative Action Plan which adheres to the legal requirements set forth over 5 decades ago.  In a 5-3 decision, the Court upheld a race-based affirmative action policy of the University of Texas at Austin.  Abigail Fisher, a Caucasian woman, sued the school over what she deemed to be racial discrimination after she was denied admissions to the school in 2008.

The University’s admissions protocol consists of a two-pronged approach: 75% of the student body is filled with public high school students who finish in the top 10% of their graduating class, while the remaining 25% of seats are filled based on a number of factors, one of which is race. This Top Ten Rule is known as a “holistic” approach to admissions decisions.  Their policy is meant to increase black and Hispanic admissions at the University, which historically were lacking.

Based on her academics, Abigail Fisher did not qualify for admissions under the 10% rule, making it necessary for her to compete for the limited number of enrollment slots remaining.  Ultimately, she was not accepted into the University.

What is the Goal of Affirmative Action?

Although Affirmative Action in the area of education, which is aimed at student enrollment, differs from employment-related Affirmative Action, aimed at hiring and employment practices, the intent of both is the same: to ensure certain protected classes receive an equal opportunity for consideration in education and employment and, in the case of employment, an equal chance to advance in the organization.

Who Needs a Written Affirmative Action Plan?

Government contractors and subcontractors with at least 50 employees, and a government contract of $50,000 or more, are required to have a written plan that is updated annually. The applicable laws cover minorities and women,[1] veterans[2] and people with disabilities.[3] Additionally, a financial institution that is a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) must comply with Affirmative Action laws.[4]

Who Enforces Affirmative Action Regulations?

The United States Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) oversees and enforces the obligations of affirmative action and equal opportunity programs required for those organizations doing business with the federal government.  The OFCCP has the power to conduct audits on organizations required to have an Affirmative Action Plan in place, obtain Conciliation Agreements from those in violation of regulatory requirements, and recommend enforcement action(s) to the Solicitor of Labor. Penalties for non-compliance may include monetary penalties, including back wages to applicants negatively impacted, and/or debarment.  Companies who are debarred lose the right to hold federal government contracts in the future.

How First Contact HR Can Keep Your Organization Compliant?

Our Affirmative Action specialists can create a custom Plan for your organization that meets all the necessary legal requirements.  We can update your Plan annually and accomplish all of these goals while offering a competitive price and accessibility to our Affirmative Action Team for any questions or support needs.  Please contact us today to get started!


[1] Executive Order 11246 on Nondiscrimination under Federal Contracts, Subpart B, Sec. 202(1)

[2] Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, as amended.

[3] Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended.

[4] 41 CFR 60-1.3; 41 CFR 60-250.2; 60-300.2; 60-741.2


Twitter del.icio.us Digg Facebook linked-in Yahoo Buzz StumbleUpon

Workplace Violence: Strategies For Surviving An Imminent Threat

According to the Department of Homeland Security, the current best practice in the event of an active threat at work is RUN, HIDE, FIGHT.  When preventative measures fail to thwart a violent situation on the job, the following guidelines could prove critical to getting yourself, and your staff, out alive.

RUN – If you can get out, get out! Assist others along the way, but do so only if it does not put you in further danger.  Leave your stuff behind (unless it is immediately available) and go to your EMERGENCY ACTION PLAN’s evacuation route or designated exit.  Once you are clear from danger, prevent others from walking into the danger, and then call 911.  Your EMERGENCY ACTION PLAN should contain rally points (safe locations) where you and your staff can meet should an incident take place. This allows you to take an inventory of your staff and ensure everyone is accounted for.

HIDE – If you cannot run, then hide.  Find a location where you’re not likely to be found and silence your phone.  If you are able to call 911 during this time, do so.  Even if you cannot speak to the operator, simply calling and leaving the call active will alert authorities to your approximate location.  Stay calm and quiet.  If you are able to lock yourself in an office or other secure area, do so.  Do not open the door for anyone except the authorities.  It is important to stay away from interior windows as well.  During safety drills at schools, police advise students and teachers to stay out of sight of those interior windows which look into classrooms.  The same holds true for workplaces. If a threat sees people through a window, he will see potential victims, and the violence may escalate.  Understanding the difference between cover and concealment is also critical.  Concealment means hiding and staying out of sight.  Cover means placing a barricade between yourself and the danger (like bullets, for example).  Situational awareness is important in understanding what objects may prove useful barriers, and what will do nothing to protect you from injury. And finally, when you are hiding, prepare for the worst – which means – be ready to fight.

FIGHT – If you are confronted with a situation where you may wind up seriously injured or killed, you should fight.  The goal here is to physically harm the threat.  Law enforcement recommends aiming for “soft spots”; groin, face, eyes, etc, and using improvised weapons; chairs, box cutters, letter openers, and anything else that would hurt the person or slow them down.  If you are carrying a gun, exercise caution when deciding whether to use it.  You don’t want the intruder to get his hands on it, you don’t want to inadvertently shoot an innocent bystander, and you don’t want the police to mistake you for a threat when they arrive.  If you are able to harm and incapacitate the intruder, first ensure you’re safe, and then call 911.  Speak clearly and calmly, and provide the location of the incident, and location and description of the intruder.  You may also want to provide information about victims or injuries.

Two considerations in handling the aftermath of workplace violence:

  1. When the first responders arrive, they may very well ignore the injured.  Their first priority is assuring the intruder is neutralized.  Rest assured, EMS and other medical care will arrive and assist those who are hurt.  Try to stay out of the first responders’ way, and if they approach you for information, be prepared to help them; and
  2. Your place of business will be considered a crime scene.  Depending on the severity of the incident, this may last for a day, weeks, or even months.  Keep this in mind when creating your company’s EMERGENCY ACTION PLAN.  You may want to have contingencies in place for alternate work locations.  Instruct your staff to never try to return to the scene to retrieve belongings without asking the authorities first.  They will probably require an escort, or may be barred from entry altogether.

Remember that workplace violence can happen to any company at any time.  According to a study conducted by the FBI[1], between 2000 and 2013, 40 out of 50 states experienced an active shooter incident.  There were 160 active shooter incidents in this country during that same 14 year time frame.  In 16 of those incidents, the violence occurred at more than one location.  An average of 11.4 Active Shooter incidents occur annually (Sandy Hook Elementary is one terrifying example of this).  These incidents are on the rise; the first 6.4 incidents during the FBI’s study happened in the first 7 years, while 16.4 occurred during the last 7 years.The first shot or instance of aggression is almost always directed at the perpetrator’s spouse or other family member, and 60% of violent incidents are over before the police even arrive on the scene.

While these numbers are startling and scary, there are ways to prevent, prepare, and take action if your place of business is a victim of workplace violence.

First Contact HR is a full-service background screening company that provides pre-employment background checks, employee background checks, drug screening, education and employment verifications, and many other services that may assist in keeping your workplace safe.  For more information, please call our office at 267-419-1390, or visit our website at www.firstcontacthr.com.


[1]https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/office-of-partner-engagement/active-shooter-incidents/a-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-2000-2013

 

Twitter del.icio.us Digg Facebook linked-in Yahoo Buzz StumbleUpon

PA Waives ACT 153 Background Screening Fees for Volunteers

This year has seen a fair amount of change around background screening laws for schools in Pennsylvania with the introduction of ACT 153. According to the legislation that took effect in January, everyone whose work could involve contact with children has to undergo a background screening clearance. This goes for anyone working in, or for, schools – including volunteers. While on the surface this is legislation is on target with better protecting the children within the state, it adds a huge financial burden on institutions and individuals.

Since the law was passed last October, there have been concerns raised with legislators about cost to volunteers. Many believe the cost is prohibitive, unfair and potentially deter people from volunteering. For these reasons, Governor Tom Wolf announced two weeks ago that changes to the law would be made to ease the burden on people looking to volunteer at schools. According to Wolf, starting on July 25th 2015, the fees for the child abuse history clearance and the statewide criminal background check will be waived for volunteers who work with children.

Additionally, the Department of Human Services and PA state police will be reducing the cost of child abuse clearances and criminal background checks by 20% for all other applicants (down to $8 from $10). The aim with these changes is to ease the cost burden on those who are now required to have these screens done every 36 months.

Gov. Wolf stated in the news release last Wednesday, “My action today could not have been accomplished without the hard work of the General Assembly, who has participated in an ongoing bipartisan working group with the Administration in an effort to develop needed clarifications to the Child Protective Services Law … Through that process, the General Assembly expressed concerns of many members about the cost of background clearances, particularly for volunteers. I share those concerns, and that is why I am excited to announce these actions today.”

The new policy does not affect the cost of FBI background checks required for people who haven’t lived in the state continuously for 10 years and work with children. The full cost of $27.00 for the federal checks will still apply to volunteers and employees alike.

For more information about clearances required under the Child Protective Service Law, head to www.keepskidssafe.pa.gov. For more information about PA Act 153, you can read about it on our blog.

 

Twitter del.icio.us Digg Facebook linked-in Yahoo Buzz StumbleUpon

USDA Performs Drug Tests for Recreational and Medical Marijuana, Even in States Where It’s Legal

Although the number of states that are legalizing marijuana is increasing, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is sticking to their “Drug-Free Workplace” Program. In a memo to over 100,000 employees, the USDA stated that while some may be permitted by state law to use marijuana for recreational purposes, it “is not authorized under Federal law nor the Department’s Drug-Free Workplace program.”

Under this program, the USDA may conduct drug tests randomly, after an accident / unsafe practice, or if they are under reasonable suspicion that a worker is using drugs. These tests check for substances identified by the Drug Enforcement Administration as Schedule I or II. Schedule II drugs, such as cocaine, Ritalin, and methadone, are categorized as substances with accepted medical use but have the potential for abuse. Conversely, Schedule I drugs have no accepted medical use and boast an even greater abuse potential than Schedule II. These drugs include marijuana, heroin, and LSD. The Drug-Free Workplace program has conducted Schedule I and II drug tests since 1988 and shows no sign of adjusting to recent marijuana legalization laws.

The USDA memo reminds workers that everyone who tests positive for marijuana, no matter the state, will be disciplined – including those who use medical marijuana. The memo references Medical Review Officer Manual, stating, “State initiatives and laws, which make available to an individual a variety of illicit drugs by a physician’s prescription or recommendation, do not make the use of these illicit drugs permissible under the Federal Drug-Free Workplace Program.” This puts those using medical marijuana under the same jurisdiction as recreational users.

While that may seem harsh, it should be noted that marijuana is still illegal under federal law. Therefore, the USDA, as a federal agency, must maintain a marijuana-free policy. Additionally, working under the influence of marijuana can potentially threaten the safety, health, and security of other USDA workers and the American public.

However, an article on the subject does note that federal policy might be in for a change. The Food and Drug Administration is performing a study on marijuana’s safety and medicinal effects. Should the Administration downgrade marijuana from its Schedule I status, the USDA’s strict stance on the drug may change

 

Twitter del.icio.us Digg Facebook linked-in Yahoo Buzz StumbleUpon

Infographic: Workplace Intelligence

Ever wonder how your ‘smarts’ fit into your workplace? The infographic, “What kind of smart are you” by BestEducationalDegrees.com examines how other forms of intelligence, separate from IQ, can help or hinder a team at work.

Continue reading

Twitter del.icio.us Digg Facebook linked-in Yahoo Buzz StumbleUpon

Minimum Wages increase in New York, New Jersey & Connecticut

Effective December 31, 2013, the minimum wage in New York will increase to $8.00 per hour for non-tipped employees according to the Department of Labor, Division of Labor Standards.

Continue reading

Twitter del.icio.us Digg Facebook linked-in Yahoo Buzz StumbleUpon

Philadelphia Eagles Player Targeted in Bank Fraud Scheme

Ed Hille/Philly.com

A Philadelphia Eagles player was the victim of theft by a person he trusted – an employee of a security firm. Late last month, Eagles offensive lineman, Todd Herremans made news headlines, but not for an Eagles victory. A 37-year-old man named Robert von Ryan is charged with bank fraud, allegedly stealing more than $225,000 from Herremans’ bank account.

Continue reading

Twitter del.icio.us Digg Facebook linked-in Yahoo Buzz StumbleUpon