Government Shutdown and its Impact on HR

Posted on October 12, 2013 by firstcontacthr

For the first time in 17 years, portions of the united states government are closed as the House of Representatives, the Senate and the White house were unable to reach an agreement to fund the federal government for the 2014 fiscal year.

While the affects of this government shutdown are broad and far reaching, the main cause for concern for human resource professionals should be that a number of government organizations such as; e-verify, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), have been either shutdown or severely limited.

Continue reading →

The Dark Side of Employment Background Screening

Posted on November 5, 2012 by firstcontacthr

In this day and age, companies are becoming increasingly concerned with their financial well-being and corporate responsibility. For most of them, this means ensuring employee safety and candor in the work place.

Background screening companies like First Contact HR are here to keep company work environments safe by mitigating risky hires, while also remaining legally compliant. Providing background checks means background screening companies must have a high standard for legal integrity to help their clients make the best hiring decisions.

Continue reading →

State Laws Restricts Employers’ Use of Social Security Numbers

Posted on October 7, 2012 by firstcontacthr

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:

· Publicly display or post more than the last four digits of SSNs.
· Print SSNs on employees’ badges, parking permits or timecards.
· Require people to use their SSN to access a website unless encrypted or over a secure connection.
· Use more than the last four digits to access a website unless a password or other unique identifier is also required.
· Use more than the last four digits of an SSN as an employee number.
· Send SSNs through the mail, unless the documents are applications or other such forms; and then SSNs must not be visible through a windowed envelope.
· Keep unsecured files containing SSNs and allow non authorized personnel access to such files.

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 Purpose of Credit Reports in Background Checks

Posted on September 12, 2012 by firstcontacthr

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 →

Penn State University Implements Updated Background Check Policy

Posted on August 12, 2012 by firstcontacthr

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:

Any loyalty or terrorism issue;
Patterns of conduct (e.g., alcoholism/drug addiction, financial irresponsibility/major liabilities, dishonesty, un-employability for Negligence or misconduct, criminal conduct);
Felony and misdemeanor offenses;
Drug manufacturing/trafficking/sale;
Significant honesty issue (e.g., extortion, armed robbery, embezzlement, perjury);
Criminal sexual misconduct;
Serious violent behavior (e.g., rape, aggravated assault, arson, child abuse, manslaughter);
Illegal use of firearms/explosives; and
Employment related misconduct involving dishonesty, policy violations, criminal or violent behavior.

Further, prior to taking any adverse action against any subject, First Contact HR recommends consideration of the following:

The nature, extent and seriousness of the conduct;
The circumstances surrounding the conduct;
The frequency of the conduct;
How recently the conduct occurred;
The individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct;
The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other pertinent behavior changes;
The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress;
The likelihood of continuation of the conduct;
How, and if, the conduct bears upon potential job responsibilities; and
The individual’s employment history before and after the conduct.

Massachusetts CORI Reform Law and its Implications on Employer Background Checks

Posted on July 1, 2012 by firstcontacthr

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.

Continue reading →

First Contact HR Top Background Screening Trends in 2012

Posted on May 29, 2012 by firstcontacthr

With the increasing number of employers conducting background checks, public concerns have arisen pertaining to the method, use and fairness of such checks in potentially barring applicants from employment.

First Contact HR has compiled a list of the most significant trends that are shaping the background screening industry.

Continue reading →

New Guidance issued by EEOC on Criminal Background Checks

Posted on May 7, 2012 by firstcontacthr

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:

The nature or gravity of the offense or conduct;
The time elapsed since the offense, conviction; and/or completion of the sentence; and
The nature of the job sought or held.

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:

employers who are able to validate their use of background screening policies and practices as a business necessity will meet the defense, or;
develop a targeted, three (3) factor screening approach (as outlined above), and provide subjects with criminal records an opportunity for an “individualized assessment.”

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:

Eliminate policies and practices that impose blanket prohibitions to employment based on any conviction;
Do not request arrest records from applicants;
Educate and train hiring managers and decision-makers about appropriate use of conviction history in hiring and promotion, and separation;
Revise screening procedures to ensure that they are job related and consistent with business necessity;
Do not ask applicants for disclosure of convictions that are not job related and consistent with business necessity, and;
Keep information about applicants’ and employees’ conviction history confidential.

Employer Action Steps:

Review background screening policies and practices in light of the new guidance, and;
Make adjustments needed to the extent practices cannot be justified as job related and consistent with business necessity, and;
Recruiters and job interviewers must be trained in connection with the EEOC’s Guidance in order to be credible witnesses in any challenge the employer’s hiring, promotion, or separation decision-making.

How much do you know about your Child’s Daycare Center?

Posted on March 9, 2012 by firstcontacthr

Imagine you discovered the owner of your child’s daycare center was a convicted felony on such crime as battery, assault, domestic violence, grand theft and even manslaughter. Would this information prompt you to pause or re-consider the daycare center you select?

While you might assume that the state in which you live does a thorough background check on daycare owners and employees, you’ll be surprised to know that only 11 states in the U.S. conduct full background checks on potential daycare workers.

In an investigative report conducted by Dateline’s Chris Hansen, many daycares’ true colors were exposed when the investigative team questioned daycare owner’s criminal histories. In one case, it was revealed that Brighter Beginnings Pre School in Clearwater, Florida owner, Melissa Van Cleave has convictions for battery, domestic violence and a DUI, yet is still able to run her daycare.

Under The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidelines, arrest records should only be used as a bar from employment if pertinent to the position. Child care-related crimes such as sex abuse, battery and manslaughter, for example, could be a bar from employment in the child care industry. Even if your state conducts a background check on a daycare center, it’s important as a parent to ask the right question such as the type of background check conducted, do research, and occasionally visit the daycare unannounced.

Here are some surprising statistics about background checks and child care providers:

About 12 million children under the age of 5 are in some type of child care setting every week.
Children may be cared for by an adult other than a parent for 35-45 hours each week.
21 states do not conduct fingerprint checks.
43 states do not check the sex offender registry for child care staff.
24 states do not conduct a fingerprint check for family child care providers.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Sources:

http://moms.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/02/10556385-is-someone-with-a-criminal-past-running-your-kids-day-care

http://childcare.about.com/od/childsafe2/a/backgroundcheck.htm

http://www.eeoc.gov/

Employers Face Class Action Lawsuits for Online Applications in Violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act

Posted on February 2, 2012 by firstcontacthr

In a response to a lack of communication during the online application process, the National Law Forum reports that an increasing number of job seekers are suing employers who are in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

In a recent class action lawsuit against K-Mart, prosecutors say that the online applications that they filled out for positions at K-Mart are in violation of the FCRA. The retailer allegedly utilizes buttons on their online applications that either say “decline” or “accept.” These buttons are the only means offered by K-Mart to obtain an applicant’s consent to submit to a background. Apparently, this simple button click is not the correct way to obtain a background check authorization from an applicant.

According to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, in order to provide full disclosure to a job applicant:

a clear and conspicuous disclosure has been made in writing to the consumer at any time before the report is procured or caused to be procured, in a document that consists solely of the disclosure, that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes; and the consumer has authorized in writing (which authorization may be made on the document referred to in clause (i)) the procurement of the report by that person.

The simplicity of a “decline” or “accept” button does not constitute a written authorization, prosecutors say. Employers who utilize online job applications argue that under the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-Sign), electronically authorizing background checks are permitted. However, E-sign only applies to consumers or customers, not job applicants.

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 certainly okay to obtain a background check authorization from an online job application, it is important to keep in mind that the authorization must:

Provide a clear and conspicuous disclosure in writing to the applicant that a consumer report for employment purposes will be procured;
The consumer has authorized in writing (such as e-mail, mouse click “yes” )the procurement of the report, and;
The electronic authorization must be “capable of being retained and accurately reproduced for later reference for the benefit of the consumer. Learn more

Regarding the K-Mart matter, it appears the company failed to satisfy the FCRA requirement stated above by requesting applicants merely to click a mouse button labeled “accept” or “decline.”

Although an electronic signature may prove to be a legally valid authorization to conduct a background check (under the FCRA), job applicants may be reluctant to accept the electronically-signed authorization and may require an actual hardcopy signature. To be safe, it might be prudent to stick with hardcopy signatures that are stored electronically with respect to background check authorizations.