Categories
Background Checks Criminal Records Economy Human Resources Miscellany Staffing Uncategorized

On Writing About Gun Control Background Checks

There is an ongoing controversy about gun control and background checks.  I have written about it, as have dozens of others.  Some writers are in favor of the background checks, while others find them invasive and an abrogation of our second amendment rights.

Having been around the block a bit, I am  hardly astonished it is a hot button issue.  But the passion and reasoning behind either position can be anything from amusing to confounding.   I have found it quite interesting that quite a few decent and intelligent souls believe their weapons are necessary to protect themselves from potential assaults during their daily commute.   Somewhere between the Starbucks and the office, they believe, you can be assaulted.  Possible.  But not likely.

But go convince the committed gun folk that you have a far better chance of being injured in a car accident on your way to work than being assaulted by a weapon wielding loon. And sorry to say, but my own experiences may attest to the fact that by the time most people realize there is something amiss, they have lost that precious moment to react.   Simply put, it’s not as easy as it looks.

As background check for gun purchases will help filter the convicted criminals an, possibly, those with mental health issues, this sensibility, the anti-gun side of things, is really theoretical.   Many states refuse or fail to conduct these background checks for firearms, claiming they have neither the funding nor the resources to do so in a messed up economy.   States claim in a lousy economy, with all their budgetary concerns, the money is best spent elsewhere.  Possibly so.

Let’s face it, must gun owners are responsible citizens.  The anti-gun club likes to paint them otherwise, but most gun owners are home owners with reputable histories and decent jobs.  Not the kind to go off and rob a grocery store.   The overwhelming majority would never even consider firing a weapon in anger unless in self-defense.

But then people are using guns illegally, and others are getting hurt or dying.   So there are two sides to this issue.

I am not proposing a solution here.   What I am promoting is rational thought.   And with rational thought, there should come some rational discussion.  It makes more sense than the conjecture I hear and the responses I get, as well as other who write about the subject.

Gun control and background checks will be an ongoing controversy.  I harbor no illusions to the contrary.  I just wish it was a smarter discussion.

Categories
Background Checks Bankruptcy Records Business Research Criminal Records Economy Human Resources Miscellany Recruiting Staffing Uncategorized

Civil Searches as Background Checks for Business Research

There is a $750 Million theme park being planned in Spring Hill, TN, which is the Nashville area.   A background check revealed that the man behind the proposed theme park owes at lest $750 Thousand in judgments.   According to an article in the Reynolds Center, the principal behind this planned theme park, with its two hotels,  a sports arena, and the inevitable wter slide, owes nearly three fourth of a million in judgments.

In the article, which was picked up from the Nashville Business Journal, writer Annie Johnson, urges those interested in business ventures or deals where civil judgments could be a major concern if not a deal breaker, urges the usage of Pacer and Lexis Nexis.   This is all good.   But to really get to the issue of state and not federal cases, sometimes the mere listing of judgments and the figures are not enough.  Sometimes it is important to conduct county civil court records searches as part of your due diligence program.

County Civil Searches are hand searches, meaning they are pulled by hand from the county courthouse.    Of course, one must be aware of the county courthouse where the records are located.   The initial judgment search should tell you that much.   And then, for business research, is is a matter of first pulling the records, and then if the situation warrants, pulling court copies as well.

For background checks, using the free sites, the Google, Yahoo, etc, are good to a point.   The databases are often most helpful.   But to really get into the meat of it all, sometimes it is necessary to run the county civil records searches.   It is, after all, a relatively a modest investment for things like $750 million theme parks and even lesser business ventures.

There is a $750 Million theme park being planned in Spring Hill, TN, which is the Nashville area.   A background check revealed that the man behind the proposed theme park owes at lest $750 Thousand in judgments.   According to an article in the Reynolds Center, the principal behind this planned theme park, with its two hotels,  a sports arena, and the inevitable wter slide, owes nearly three fourth of a million in judgments.

In the article, which was picked up from the Nashville Business Journal, writer Annie Johnson, urges those interested in business ventures or deals where civil judgments could be a major concern if not a deal breaker, urges the usage of Pacer and Lexis Nexis.   This is all good.   But to really get to the issue of state and not federal cases, sometimes the mere listing of judgments and the figures are not enough.  Sometimes it is important to conduct county civil court records searches as part of your due diligence program.

County Civil Searches are hand searches, meaning they are pulled by hand from the county courthouse.    Of course, one must be aware of the county courthouse where the records are located.   The initial judgment search should tell you that much.   And then, for business research, is is a matter of first pulling the records, and then if the situation warrants, pulling court copies as well.

For background checks, using the free sites, the Google, Yahoo, etc, are good to a point.   The databases are often most helpful.   But to really get into the meat of it all, sometimes it is necessary to run the county civil records searches.   It is, after all, a relatively a modest investment for things like $750 million theme parks and even lesser business ventures.

Categories
Background Checks Criminal Records Economy Human Resources Miscellany preemployment screening Staffing Uncategorized

God Friday May Cause Slight Delays in County Criminal Background Checks

For those conducting country criminal records searches as part of their employment screening programs, please take note there may be slight delays, Friday, April 22nd,  in the Philadelphia Courts and other courts throughout the country as court researchers close for Good Friday.    Some researchers my be on the job and in the courts, but there may be a slight delay in processing the criminal records searches.

Corra Group would like to wish everyone a very Happy Easter.   Enjoy the weekend.   Be safe.  See you Monday.

Categories
Background Checks Criminal Records Human Resources Miscellany preemployment screening Staffing Uncategorized

EEOC Sanctioned in Employer Background Checking Lawsuit

There has been much controversy regarding the EEOC’s pursuit of employers the agency believes has been discriminating against job applicants.  The belief is that certain employers are guilty of a blanket no-hire policy for any job applicant who had a previous criminal record.  The EEOC has maintained that those with criminal records are discriminated upon because of their prior transgressions.

The logic is, and I am short handing here, that if the applicant admits to a criminal conviction he is often out of the running.    This the EEOC believes is discriminatory policy and especially against minorities as  the agency maintains  ethnic minorities may have a larger percentage of criminal records.   In an attempt to what the agency considers evening the playing field the EEOC has filed a variety of lawsuits against employers., maintaining discriminatory hiring policy.

A case that was just returned, the EEOC vs Peoplemark, Inc.  the ruling didn’t go as the EEOC had planned. In fact, the agency was sanctioned for over $750 Thousand for bringing what has been termed  its  “shoot first and aim later”  tactics.  Find below an article from the WorkPlace Class Action Blog.

EEOC’s “Shoot-First, Aim Later” Tactics Result In $751,942 Sanction

Co-authored by Christopher J. DeGroff and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Joining a growing line of cases reflecting judicial intolerance for questionable litigation tactics, the recent ruling in EEOC v. Peoplemark, Inc. (W.D. Mich. Mar 31, 2011), represents solid support for employers targeted by questionable government-initiated litigation.

In EEOC v. Peoplemark, Inc., the EEOC alleged that the staffing company’s policy of not hiring individuals with a criminal record had a disparate impact on African-Americans.  Notably, the EEOC has repeatedly signaled that it intends to attack these blanket criminal background policies as disproportionally and discriminatorily affecting minorities.  Indeed, the Court inPeoplemark, Inc. noted that an EEOC Commissioner had even highlighted this case in a public meeting in 2008, noting that the Commission had unanimously approved the case against Peoplemark.

The problem with the EEOC’s theory was its assertion that Peoplemark’s had a blanket no-hire policy was simply not true.  In fact, of the 286 individuals the EEOC purported to represent in this case, only 22% actually had been hired and placed by Peoplemark.  Significantly, the Court found that even after the EEOC knew that was the case, it proceeded with the litigation anyway.

The EEOC based its claims on a three-year investigation into a charge filed by Sherri Scott.  Scott was a two-time felon with convictions for housebreaking and larceny who Peoplemark chose not to hire because of her criminal record.  After hotly contested subpoena enforcement actions, the company gave the EEOC over 18,000 pages of documents with the detailed personnel information of the group the EEOC sought to represent.  Based on its investigation, the EEOC filed suit on May 29, 2008 claiming that Peoplemark had a blanket policy of not hiring anyone with a criminal record.  Peoplemark denied that it had such a categorical policy.  The EEOC litigated the case for a total of 3 1/2 years, based almost exclusively on the fact that Scott had not been hired, and some “early statements” by a company witness.  In April 2009, the EEOC finally identified the 286 individuals it claimed it represented (and only after it was forced to do so by the Court).  Peoplemark’s expert was able to determine that 22% of these individuals had actually been hired and placed by the company.  Even after the EEOC had the materials showing that this was the case, it still pursued the matter.  It was only after the EEOC failed to designate a statistical expert per a scheduling deadline that it finally folded and agreed to dismiss the case.

In its Motion for Fees, Costs, and Sanctions, Peoplemark argued that the EEOC had deliberately caused the company to incur attorneys’ fees and expert fees when it should have known that the company did not have the blanket no-hire policy.  The Court agreed.  Citing the longstanding case of Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (1978), the Court noted that it had the authority to assess fees against the EEOC if the action it brought was “frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation….”  In the Court’s view, if the EEOC had done the investigation it should have done with its own represented individuals, it should have known that Peoplemark had, in fact, hired a number of the allegedly injured individuals, thereby undercutting the EEOC’s central “blanket policy” position.  Indeed, the Court suggested that the EEOC should have known this critical flaw before it even filed the case, after three years of an intense administrative investigation.

The Court’s decision found that the final nail in the EEOC’s coffin was its failure to identify a statistical expert to champion its disparate impact claim.  The Court noted that the EEOC knew from the day it filed this case that it would rely heavily on expert statistical testimony, and that it would “carry a major price tag for both sides.”  Nevertheless, the EEOC failed to identify an expert within the time period set in the Court’s schedule, even after receiving significant extensions.  The EEOC’s failure to pursue the statistical component of its case led the Court to find that an award of “attorneys’ fees is appropriate because of the unnecessary burden imposed on defendant.”

The remainder of the Court’s decision is a detailed analysis of how it would calculate the fees award.  After making some minor deductions for duplicative or vague requests, the Court awarded Peoplemark $219,350.17 in attorneys’ fees.  The larger component of the sanction, however, was $526,172.00 in expert fees.  The EEOC challenged the expert fees as being too high, citing what it had paid its (notably, unused) expert.  The Court found that the EEOC’s argument was like comparing “apples to oranges” and rejected its position.  After adding in some additional miscellaneous expenses, the Court ordered the EEOC to pay Peoplemark a total of $751,942.48. This is one of the largest sanction awards ever against the Commission.

EEOC v. Peoplemark, Inc. joins cases like EEOC v. Bloomberg L.P.EEOC o/b/o Serrano, et al v. Cintas Corp., and EEOC v. CRST that suggest a growing intolerance for the EEOC’s “shoot-first, aim later” tactics in large-scale pattern or practice cases.  The Court in Peoplemarkconcluded that the stakes in these systemic cases are high, and expense of litigating them should not be taken lightly.  Employers are well-served to pressure-test the EEOC’s theories from the onset of a case by requiring the EEOC to “show its work” in all aspects of its claims.  Faced with case authority like EEOC v. Peoplemark, Inc., however, the EEOC will find it far more difficult to stonewall the targets of its litigation.