Are people's social media accounts checked in employment screening?

Are people’s social media accounts checked in employment screening?

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.

Be Sociable, Share!