September
12
2011
In an effort to make communications with APSCREEN easier, we have expanded into other social media platforms. We setup a company page for APSCREEN on Facebook and our very own Founder and CEO Tom Lawson is now tweeting on Twitter. If you are currently on either Facebook or Twitter we encourage you to reach out to us and “like” or “follow” us. Check out the links below to the websites.
February
2
2012
Q: Background checks will only reflect history back 7-years, correct? Is that regardless of the “crime” even if there are felonies on the record, or are there exceptions?
A: Well, there are a number of screening companies that ignore California Law , following only the Federal law which has lifted the time requirement. California is special in that it maintains a 7-year reporting limit on convictions, and a violation of that rule is a biggie!
One other thing that is nebulous, as a practice in all states is understanding the “full adjudication” component of reporting criminal convictions.
Generally, it is mistakenly believed that the date of the conviction is what anchors the reporting date limit, but that is not correct. Actually, what is permissible is the reporting of convictions that antedate “full adjudication” by the 7 year period, not necessarily 7 years from the date of conviction.
That means, simply that if you are convicted of a crime on January 1, 1990, say for murder, and you serve 20 years, being released from prison, on January 1, 2010 that conviction is reportable since you were released from the court’s jurisdiction within the 7 year statutory reporting period.
Now, that can even extend further, if there is parole involved the way we at APSCREEN interpret the law is that a conviction is reportable 7 years from the date that the convicted party is released form court custody, meaning not only have they been released form prison, but have completed all court requirements including parole, and in many cases not until restitution is complete, IF the restitution is part of the release conditions from the court.
There are pitfalls to that, as well, since many screening firms mistakenly believe that the reporting period can actually be until 7 years from the date that the convicted person’s civil rights are restored, but that is also incorrect, as civil rights restoration is not automatic, it is a function of the person requesting that the rights be restored, and is not tied to any jurisdictional custody dates, or to the full adjudication date, or the date that the person was completely and unconditionally released from the courts custody and jurisdiction.
February
2
2012
Trucking company’s negligent hiring practices lead to fatal collision
The plaintiffs alleged that the driver of a tractor-trailer was negligent and reckless for driving while fatigued and crossing the centerline. Suit against his employer alleged negligent hiring, among other claims. The parties reached a confidential settlement after the jury awarded $7 million. Reagan v. Dunaway Timber Co.
Roger Reagan, 42, was driving a tractor-trailer eastbound on a two-lane road when Morgan Quisenberry, driving a tractor-trailer for Dunaway Timber Co., approached from the westbound lane. As Quisenberry rounded a curve, his truck crossed the centerline and clipped an SUV. The truck then crossed completely over into the eastbound lane, struck a car, and veered head on into Reagan’s truck, which caught fire.
Reagan was trapped inside the truck cab for several minutes. He was able to pull himself out, but fell beneath the truck and was trapped there for about 15 minutes before being freed. He suffered significant internal injuries, a severe crush injury to his left leg, and second-degree burns. He died about an hour later of cardiac arrest brought on by the other injuries. Reagan is survived by his wife and two children, who were both minors at the time of his death. He had earned about $43,000 annually.
January
30
2012
The killing of a south Charlotte store manager – allegedly by a felon hired to work there – highlights the risks companies take when they hire an employee with a criminal record, or don’t do a full background check on applicants.
The Flying Biscuit Cafe in StoneCrest shopping center faces possible fines or other penalties from the Alcohol Law Enforcement division for hiring Mark Anthony Cox, 22.
Background checks are only legally required in certain fields, such as child care and for people who work with the elderly, but the Flying Biscuit could be penalized because businesses aren’t allowed to hire felons convicted in the last three years for jobs that involve serving alcohol.
Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/01/28/2965684/killing-puts-background-checks.html#storylink=cpy
January
13
2012
For many companies, referencing evokes more emotions that a hangover. Why you ask? Because the sheer nature of verifying employment, or education, or attempting to make contact with those dreaded former supervisors, co-workers or friends can take such inordinate amounts of time that one regularly wonders if it is really worth it! As an employment screener since 1980, I can definitively say that referencing is one of the single most important candidacy qualification tools. And, it is the one usually substituted out in favor of more factually based screening tools such as criminal conviction checks, driving reports and employment credit reports. Let’s look at why everyone, uniformly HATES to reference:
1. Multiple attempts.
Here we have the basis of ALL deference to referencing, and it is usually not a function of the reference, but more of the candidate. In our referencing division, and after literally millions of active references garnered over the last 32 years, 85% of the time, the reference fails because the CANDIDATE failed to provide adequate enough information to help you get to the source, or the employer failed to ask the right questions. In short, if you don’t ask the right questions of a candidate with regard to how to contact the person who shall provide accolades or admonishments, how can the candidate give you what you need to get it done? Conversely, if the candidate fails to provide who he using to help him put his best foot forward, how can he/she expect you to be able to properly screen and qualify him/her? It all boils down to a solid, simple inquiry form and a solid reply by the candidate. If the form is incomplete, move on to the next candidate – don’t chase them; make them provide you or your reference with what you need to get the reference completed. A variation on this theme is the reference company that will not try until the reference is achieved. Their service is limited.
At APSCREEN we call until we get the answers you need. That is the mark of a true referencing professional
2. Fake References.
In this situation, candidates provide a lot of stuff on paper, but with no actual substance, or they provide set-up references who don’t necessarily tell the whole truth. How do you combat this? We like to call it a “developed reference” which is simply asking the person whom you are speaking with to provide the names and phone numbers of at least two other people known to the subject. Once obtained, you have to call them immediately (before the candidate has a chance to prep them for your call) and you will get the unvarnished truth about the candidate, plain and simple.
3. Out-of Business Former Employers.
About 40% of the references APSCREEN attempts on a daily basis result in out of service telephone numbers, or returned mail. Again, it is up to the candidate to provide you with contact information that is current, cogent and easy to access, or there will be no reference.
4. Can’t Find the School.
If it is a “real” school it is easily locatable. And, if the school has moved, changed its name, or otherwise been absorbed into another institution, it is up to the candidate to keep you informed about his alma mater.
5. No Returned Calls after Messages Left. It is up to the candidate to let you know that the reference will be calling or don’t provide that reference.
6. Referencing is not a Hidden or Lost Function.
In fact, referencing is the shortest distance between you and a candidate’s suitability determination – so the sooner you get the references completed, the sooner that candidate advances.
7. In-house or Third-Party Reference Service?
Use of outside source is better when it comes to referencing. Outside referencers have the will and desire to get the files off of their desk and are not encumbered by being an HR Person, and all that entails. You will also be less swayed by an imperfect reference effort – meaning that even if all of the stars are in alignment, there can still be legitimate delays to the process. Instead of getting impatient with your candidate directly, you can lay that off on the reference. This way, the otherwise excellent candidate is not tainted by a process that may unfairly eliminate him or her from candidacy. You may have noticed a theme throughout this thread which is that it is primarily incumbent upon the candidate to make your referencing life easier, but it is up to you to make absolutely sure that you are clear about what is expected of your candidate, and that is accomplished with solid formology and a simple but effective communication between you and the candidate at the outset. Once you have laid out the ground rules, it is up to the candidate to tell you whether or not he/she wants the job by making the job of qualifying him/her easy or hard, and it is a two-way street. Make it clear what you need to qualify them, and provide them with the tools to help you in your process and it will be up to them to determine how much effort they are willing to provide to make hiring them easier.
January
12
2012
As a Consumer Reporting Agency, APSCREEN is not authorized by law to purvey unverified information. APSCREEN has long led the fight against the use of Social Media in the hiring context for several reasons:
a. No consent is usually given to use Social Media by the candidate, unless an expressed consent is given for an “Investigative Consumer Report” which is the component of a background check that involves personal interviews to determine “mode of living.”
The incorrect assumption is that social media legitimately replaces in-person ‘mode-of-living’ interviews (which, in most states require a Private Investigators’ License), but in fact social media does not replace in-person interviews because the postings on social media sites are either anonymous, or pseudo-named, and do not provide an audit trail as to either the actual person-to-person statements made to the enquirer, or the veracity or corroborate-ability of the statement or posting. In essence use of social media in a hiring decision is factually akin to using rumor and innuendo, not facts to make a hiring decision. Many hiring managers will argue that social media is used only contextually, and is only one component in a series of components that go to the overall profile of a candidate. This reasoning, while seemingly sound is flawed because the social media component is not-factually based, nor verifiable, unless by the candidate as to his or her own posting.
b. In ANY hiring scenario a candidate should be given the opportunity to:
* Know what is being said about him/her
* Know who said it
* Be able to refute inaccurate information
* Have legal remedies available to them in the event that false information leads to an adverse event.
c. Postings by the candidates themselves are usually never intended to be reviewed in the hiring context, and since no specific consent is given, what may be information that the candidate posts for his friends may not what he might want a future employer to see, and without consent or the right to decline consent, his choices are removed. Further, if the candidate declines consent for social media review, a hiring manager could assume that the candidate has something to hide and may rule adversely in the hiring decision, solely for the purpose that declining consent assumes the position of lack of disclosure.
d. Finally, Social media is an unnecessary hiring toll because there are sufficient available verifiable ways to validate public, private and semi-private records available to the hiring manager upon which to determine candidacy.
While there are myriad reasons not to use social media in the hiring context, 50%+ of the HR Departments use this tool on a stealth basis because there are virtually no controls available under the FCRA.
It is APSCREEN’s opinion that HR uses social media at its own peril, since, as am Employment Screening Expert Witness since 1988, I can most assuredly advise that there are ways to determine if social media played a role in the adverse effect upon a candidate, and just as Negligent hiring is tantamount to potential horrible crimes in the workplace, Negligent Candidacy Elimination carries with it stark and sobering case law that supports significant monetary settlements and civil adjudications inuring to those so damaged.
January
10
2012
The EEOC received 99,922 charges of alleged discrimination in 2010, the highest number in recent history. As its workload has increased, the commission has sought greater funding so it can pursue cases in which employer hiring practices discriminate broadly against members of protected classes.
Those practices include using criminal background checks and credit-history checks to screen applicants. Also targeted: the refusal of some employers to hire people who are unemployed and searching the Internet for information about applicants.
Known within the EEOC as the “systemic initiative,” the program was a major focus of EEOC Chair Jacqueline Berrien’s statements in the commission’s fiscal year 2012 Congressional Budget Justification that was submitted earlier this year.
December
28
2011
Effective January 1, 2012, a new California law – Senate Bill 459 (SB 459) – imposes stiff penalties that range between $5,000 to $25,000 for the “willful misclassification” of independent contractors by employers “avoiding employee status for an individual by voluntarily and knowingly misclassifying that individual as an independent contractor.” To read SB 459, visit: http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0451-0500/sb_459_bill_20111009_chaptered.pdf.
December
21
2011
In reviewing Snell & Wilmer’s guidelines, the layman will gain a useful basic understanding of this area of the law. What is omitted is the primary legal ‘pursuit’ concept of respondeat superior which a legal doctrine which states that, in many circumstances, an employer is responsible for the actions of employees performed within the course of their employment. This concept drags most employers into the liability position, and is difficult to overcome, which makes conducting a thorough background check (not a cheapie database one) critically important.
It is upon this basis that I am usually hired as one of the longest serving Negligent Hiring/Retention/Training/Supervision Expert Witnesses in the U.S. in addition to starting one the oldest, continuously operated Factual Employment Screening company in the U.S., since 1980.
November
29
2011
Employee Locator is our popular locate service for HR Managers and Benefit Plan Administrators.
People often ask what is the difference between what we do and what other services can do, including the government.
So here is a matrix you can use to easily see how great Employee Locator is.
November
23
2011
Jason James Murphy, a convicted child molester, began cooperating with an LAPD investigation, as child protection advocates called for background checks for those with access to child actors.
