The National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS) released 5 tips for conducting effective employee background checks in 2013.
The Association’s guidance is targeted to all employers that utilize employment background checks to vet employees for job opportunities. Company roles in human resources, legal compliance, risk management, finance and general management should review the full press release.
They’re being called the “perversion files” – a record of previously confidential files listing the names of 1,200 Boy Scout of America officials and scoutmasters who are accused of abusing young boys over a period of two decades.
The files released Thursday, October 19 contain more than 15,000 pages detailing accusations of the sexual abuse against scout leaders and officials between 1965 and 1985. The list of names in the documents were deemed “ineligible volunteers” and include those who are accused of sexual abuse towards the minors they came into contact with during boy scout meetings and functions.
Police are now responding to 523 of the alleged cases. The files were kept confidential – until now – and represent all that the Boy Scouts of America could have done to protect their young members, but didn’t. Continue reading
In recent years identity protection has become an increasingly big deal. Specifically, the handling of Social Security Numbers (SSNs) by companies has been reworked in a number of states in order to better safeguard their employees against identity theft. The sudden concern arose primarily due to companies putting employee’s financial information at risk for years by asking for SSNs in places they really do not need to be. Identification cards, employment applications, pay stubs, mail, or even the electronic transmission of SSNs via the internet all unnecessarily heighten the risk for identity theft. With today’s criminals consistently finding new ways to exploit inadequate security systems, it’s important that companies and employers strive to cut down on excessive exposure of sensitive information.
In most states across the U.S. it is illegal to do the following:
The California Office of Privacy Protection has put together a set of recommendations, click here, for any entities who wish to tighten up their SSN practices.
The use of credit reports in background checks have been around for decades starting with banks and financial service institutions as a means to vet candidates who would be handling cash and have access to sensitive information, such as social security numbers, account numbers and balances, as well as other bank assets. The rationale was simple: if a candidate was experiencing difficulty managing their personal finances, then how effective could they be on the job in making leading or other financial decisions that might affect the company’s bottom line. Further, if the candidate was experiencing severe personal financial stress such as payment delinquencies, liens and collection activities, would it be prudent for the financial institution to hire and place such candidates in positions with access to cash and assets that might prompt dishonest behavior like theft or embezzlement? Continue reading
Prior to the NCAA and Big Ten Conference sanctions, board of trustee decisions following the Freeh Report and the release of chilling voicemails left by Jerry Sandusky on a victim’s phone, the looming question of Penn State’s next steps still remain. The image of the university is undoubtedly tarnished after the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse trial revealed university officials sat idle as children were victimized by the former assistant coach to the prestigious football team.
The university is still the subject of a number of investigations and the current president, Rodney Erickson says the university is cooperating fully. [Read more] Following the sanctions levied by the NCAA and Big Ten, credit ratings provider, Moody’s Corporation announced that it may cut the university’s current “Aa1” credit rating. A downgrade from Moody’s could make it more expensive for Penn State to borrow money – the school is already $1 billion in debt. [Read more]
Financial woes aside, the university has already begun taking steps to make a dent in replenishing the image it once had; removing the Joe Paterno statue from campus may not be enough.
Erickson announced earlier this month that the university would adopt a new background check procedure. On July 5, all current and future job candidates (including third-party candidates) must undergo a criminal background check prior to working for the university. HR99 as it’s called incorporates a “more comprehensive procedure that also ensures compliance with recently issued new guidance by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on background checks.”
Associate vice president of Human Resources, Susan Basso, says that “to provide the safest possible environment for our students, faculty, staff and visitors it is imperative that Penn State implements consistent and thorough background check procedures.”
First Contact HR has always recommended that higher education adhere to EEOC guidelines and adopt a comprehensive background check policy that meets their specific needs. No college or university is the same, yet identity verification, criminal records research, sex offender registry checks, employment and education verification and motor vehicle records review are all recommended services for any potential staff member of an educational institution.
Regarding the effectiveness of background checks, Jerry Sandusky had a criminal background and was even denied a volunteer coaching job in 2010 after Juniata College conducted a background check.
HR Professional Opinion:
Higher education institutions should audit their current practices and conduct an objective risk assessment. Student safety and security should be high priority and never subordinate to other objectives of the institution. Conducting comprehensive background checks that are in compliance with federal, state and local laws are key in protecting the institution’s reputation, hiring and retaining the right talent, while creating a culture that matches the institution’s goals, objectives and vision.
Higher education should evaluate all new hires, volunteers and contractors, considering the following factors against the work to be performed or held, the work performance location, and the degree of risk to the organization:
Further, prior to taking any adverse action against any subject, First Contact HR recommends consideration of the following:
There has been a surge in legislation across the U.S. with the goal of curtailing employer use of criminal records that bar employment opportunities for ex-offenders. Take for example the new EEOC guidance on the use of arrest and conviction records and the proliferation of “ban-the-box” laws.
With the enactment of the 2010 Massachusetts Criminal Offender Records Information (CORI) Reform bill, employers face a wave of changes in their use and access to criminal records.
On April 25, 2012, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued new Enforcement Guidance on use of arrest and conviction records in employment decisions.
As a result, the new EEOC Enforcement Guidance aims to prohibit employers from using “blanket prohibitions” against hiring anyone with any kind of a criminal records, no matter how old the conviction and no matter what the prior offense may have been. When making employment decisions based on conviction records, employers should take a three (3) factor approach:
More specifically, the Enforcement Guidance provides two circumstances in which an employer’s criminal conviction policy will “consistently meet” Title VII’s “job-related” and consistent with business necessity” defense. According to the EEOC, these circumstances include:
Other defenses for employers to consider involve compliance with federal or state laws that are specific to their business. For instance, the FDIC Act requires banks to conduct criminal background checks on applicants and restricts their ability to hire individuals with certain conviction histories. Under these circumstances, this would be valid defense for claim of discrimination brought by an applicant or employee under title VII.
HR Professional Opinion
With the new EEOC Enforcement Guidance in place, here are some best practice tips and action steps for employers to consider:
Best Practice tips for employers:
Employer Action Steps:
Paula Deen. Photo: AP photo
After celebrity chef Paula Deen refused to pay a former restaurant worker to keep quiet, Lisa Jackson has decided to file a lawsuit against Paula Deen for allegations of sexual harassment and racial discrimination. Paula Deen co-owns the restaurant, Uncle Bubba’s Seafood and Oyster House in Savannah, Ga. with her brother, Bubba Hiers.
Deen is under fire for allegedly sexually harassing and inflicting assault and emotional distress on her employees, using the N-word and creating a hostile working environment. The lawsuit comes after a recent wave of criticism following Deen’s public coming out with her having Type 2 Diabetes.
In one incident, Jackson alleges that Hiers requested that she bring to work pornographic pictures of herself. In her lawsuit, Jackson claims Hiers viewed Internet pornography at the restaurant, drank on the job, made sexually charged comments to her and other staff members, kissed her and spat at her. Jackson, further alleges that both Deen and Hiers frequently made racist comments and used the N-word.
Jackson is seeking unspecified damages.
Photo: AP photo
The Costa Concordia, after the cruise ship ran aground and keeled over off the Isola del Giglio. January 14, 2012. Photo: AFP
The Costa Concordia, a luxury cruise ship sailing across the Mediterranean Sea, ran aground just off Italy’s western coast January 14, 2012 and tipped over, leaving 11 dead and 21 still missing as of Wednesday.
News of this incident has left the rest of the world to question how this devastating event occurred and who is to blame. At the forefront of the investigation and a media whirlwind is the stricken ship’s 52-year-old captain, Francesco Schettino. Currently under house arrest, Schettino is facing criminal charges for allegedly steering the Costa Concordia off course and then abandoning ship once the vessel struck land.
Prosecutors suspect Schettino deliberately went of course, endangering the lives of passengers and crew on board, but now are left to wonder about the cruise line’s hiring process. Costa Cruises, recognizes that Schettino may be the one at fault, stating on its website, “While the investigation is ongoing, preliminary indications are that there may have been significant human error on the part of the ship’s master, Captain Francesco Schettino, which resulted in these grave consequences.”
Who does the hiring for these ships? What are the policies and procedures put in place to make sure only the best captains are hired? These questions are still pending answers as an investigation is underway, however Maritime Lawyer, Jack Hickey observes that “[you] want to screen out the risk-takers, [you] want to screen out the ‘hot-doggers,’ [you] want to screen out the people who are not willing to take responsibility.” Some background screening companies can provide industry-specific skills, knowledge and aptitude testing, which can measure requirements for certain jobs.
When the Costa Concordia was launched in 2006, Schettino was described as a favorite with the ship’s passengers, especially its women. Viewed as a debonair, yet a risk taker, its not surprising that all evidence points blame on the ship’s captain for responsibility for the accidents.
In the wake of the accident, Italian Coast Guard Captain, Gregorio De Falco said to Schettino in firm words, “Go to the bow. Climb up the emergency ladder and you co-ordinate the evacuation.” He continues, “You must tell us how many people, children, women and passengers there are and the exact number of each category.”
Schettino ignored policies dealing with emergency situations (leaving passengers being is regarded as the “first law of the sea”) and orders from Port Authority to go back to the ship to coordinate operations. As a result of the captain’s poor choices, a reported $450 Million luxury cruise ship is destroyed, a company’s reputation is tarnished and more importantly, life is lost.
PepsiCo Inc.’s bottling unit, Pepsi Beverages, has agreed to settle federal racial-discrimination charges as well as pledged to provide job training and new roles, according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
PepsiCo Inc. provided a statement that said the EEOC did not find any intentional discrimination. However, the company’s former criminal background check policy disproportionately barred approximately 300 black job applicants from employment. The EEOC, which enforces employment discrimination laws, said in a release that based on an investigation, “found reasonable cause to believe” that PepsiCo Inc.’s former criminal background check policy discriminated against black people.
The former policy and practice exercised by the company used the checks to screen out job applicants who had arrest records – even if they were never convicted of a crime. The policy resulted in limiting job opportunities for minorities, who statistically have higher arrest rates than whites.
The monetary settlement is being allocated in part to the claims process but primarily to division amongst black applicants for new positions at Pepsi. The company has also agreed to submit regular reports to the EEOC on its hiring process and offer anti-discrimination training to hiring managers.
Read EEOC press release: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/1-11-12a.cfm
HR Professional Opinion:
(The comments below are part of First Contact HR’s opinion column where we offer the writer’s opinion on this post’s specific topic and thus should not be taken as legal advice.)
While it is unfortunate, PepsiCo Inc. was faced with claims of discrimination; it is commendable that the company has recognized its discriminatory policy and is taking steps towards creating a more diverse work environment. In the case of hiring, the EEOC clearly states: “There is no Federal law that clearly prohibits an employer from asking about arrest and conviction records. However, using such records as an absolute measure to prevent an individual from being hired could limit the employment opportunities of some protected groups and thus cannot be used in this way.”
Pepsi overlooked this guideline, which could have been avoided had their HR department worked with a background screening company that could make sure their screening policies were aligned with the EEOC guidelines. Pepsi’s former policy not only limited employment opportunities for minorities by considering arrest records as a component of background screening, it also failed to take into consideration the applicant’s arrest as it related to the specific job.
First Contact HR advises its clients to only consider criminal conviction records that are job related before taking any adverse action against job candidates. Further, First Contact HR recommends employers always exercise good judgment and proposes the following ten (10) criteria for employers to consider when criminal record hits are discovered in background screening reports: