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 II)

00013880The importance of choosing a background screening company that prides itself on being more than a transactional organization, cannot be overstated. Employers need HR Investigators who dig deeper and go beyond the surface of uncovered information to ensure data accuracy and legal compliance.  Without this thorough approach, employers may hire dangerous and/or unqualified people, or, conversely, job applicants may lose opportunities because their identity is not properly verified. Either of these outcomes is bad for business.  Hiring decisions based on bad data can land an employer in court (or worse).

Talented investigators avoid potentially negative hiring decisions by putting forth the added review and research required of every background check they perform.

Below are two real-world cases of checks that needed the extra time and attention.

A Picture Worth a Thousand Words

When running a criminal background check with a name and date of birth provided by the job applicant, a serious sex offense was discovered. 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 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 investigator grew resourceful. She forwarded a copy of the sex offender’s photo from the online registry to our client and asked that they confirm whether it was their job applicant. 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 address.   Had the investigator run the sex offender search and nothing more, this applicant’s record would have been returned as clean, and the employer may have made a hiring decision without critical information about the applicant’s character and past criminal activity.

Good Guy/Bad Guy

In another example based on actual events, a criminal records researcher prevented an uninformed hiring decision for another employer due to his keen instincts, due diligence and understanding of what constitutes a “red flag” when performing a background search. In this case, a job applicant’s information was run through the applicable state’s sex offender registry.  The applicant’s name matched an offender, but the year of birth did not match.  Further, a social security number trace did not verify.  A call to the client to verify the SSN and date of birth led our investigator to an entirely different SSN and date of birth. The correct SSN was run and the address matched that of the sex offender.  A Google search found that the education, prior job experience, and resume did match with the information provided by the job applicant.  Unfortunately, there were two different individuals with identical information. The individual purporting to be the Good Guy was actually a Bad Guy.  The Bad Guy found the Good Guy’s resume and other information online and copied it onto his employment application. A classic case of identity theft! Turns out, the Bad Guy had an extensive criminal record, including forgery, criminal trespassing, and stalking.  The frightening part is that without the foresight to follow up with the client about the personally identifiable information initially provided by the applicant, the education and employment information would have checked out as there was an individual by the same name who studied and worked as put forth on the consent form.  Had the investigator not contacted the client to confirm the SSN, this criminal would have skated through the background check and come out clean on the other side.

At First Contact HR, the real-life illustrations above are used as a teaching resource for all new HR Investigator hires. If a SSN does not verify, there is a name hit (even if other information does not match) and/or the job applicant lists all previous employers as “supervisor no longer there,” prudence requires follow up and additional research by a team of HR Investigators.

For more information about First Contact HR’s background screening services and human resources consulting solutions, please call 267-419-1390 or email us at client.services@firstcontacthr.com

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

PA Act 153 Amendments

Recently, the PA general assembly passed legislation aimed at providing relief to colleges and universities required to comply with the Act 153 background check requirements. The bill (HB 1276) passed the House with a vote of 190-5. It was ratified by the Senate with a unanimous vote.

The new language removes the background check requirement for employees of higher education whose direct contact with children is limited to either (A) prospective students visiting a campus, or (B) matriculated students who are enrolled at the institution. The bill also limits the need for background checks to only those on the administrative staff who have; routine interaction (i.e, “regular and repeated contact that is integral to a person’s employment or volunteer responsibilities”), and direct contact, with children. These changes remove the background check requirement for the majority of the faculty and staff at colleges and universities.

However, background checks are still required for any employee of a college or university if that individual is in direct contact with a student who is enrolled in a secondary school. This measure is intended to protect children who are in dual enrollment programs and concurrently attend high school while taking college courses. Also, background checks are still required for any college employee who has direct contact with children at summer youth camps or other youth oriented programs.

The effective date for volunteers to get certifications has been extended to August 25th 2015, and the re-certification for background checks has been increased from every three years to every five years.

 

First Contact HR’s Recommendation:

Because these changes come amidst colleges already going through screening practices that may now be extraneous – we would advise colleges and universities to continue to background check the majority of their employees in order to keep their institutions safe. Parents of children going off to college will feel more at ease knowing that the school they have chosen did more than the bare-minimum with regard to their students’ well-being. Keeping up to date with background checks on all employees is still the best practice, and with the recent fee reductions it is now more affordable to ensure the school’s staff is fully vetted.

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

Anatomy of a Background Check

Lately, there has been quite a bit of discourse on the topic of background screening in the news. Between the EEOC suing Dollar General and BMW over their alleged discriminatory screening practices, the Philadelphia building collapse in June,and the Snowden/NSA information leaking case, there’s certainly plenty to discuss. But what exactly is a background check?

Continue reading

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

Minimize White-Collar Crime in the Workplace

White-collar crime is on track to cost the USA more than $300 billion annually, with the trend steadily growing as technology takes a prominent role in day-to-day business, according to the FBI. White-collar crime is defined as nonviolent financial crimes – commercial or consumer fraud, embezzlement, bribery, etc.

Recently, Mike Levy, Chief of Computer Crimes, U.S. Attorney’s Office, presented “White-Collar Crime: Are You At Risk?” to Fort Washington Business Alliance (FWBA) members at Talamore Country Club in Pennsylvania. Mr. Levy shared how businesses can proactively prevent cyber-crime by managing disgruntled employees, installing software updates and uncovering phishing scams.

Continue reading

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

Top 10 Background Check Trends for 2013

The rising popularity of background checks has given rise to new trends for vetting new hires and employees by organizations across the U.S.The growth of background checks also permeates other areas such as screening of volunteers, contractors, business partners, board members, housing tenants and even purchasers of guns. Here’s a list of the latest 10 ten trends for 2013 complied by First Contact HR.

Continue reading

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

Background Checks on Summer Interns?

Another school year is coming to a close, summer is just a few weeks away and hundreds of thousands of students who have been vying for coveted summer internships will soon begin their work. For the students, these internships can be invaluable learning opportunities and are often necessary stepping-stones for their career paths or higher education.

Continue reading

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

Why You Need To Background Check [Infographic]

Your new potential hire has just left your office following a final interview. You feel great about their attitude and they appear to have the pedigree of a top candidate. They have all the signs for success: a resume full of great experience, stories about converting tough clients, and the charisma/charm and character you’ve only ever read about in hiring books.

Continue reading

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