For those conducting criminal background checks as part of their employment screening program, here is another reminder to the changes in the  Massachusetts State Criminal Search.  The search is formally entitled the Criminal Offender Record Information, or CORI.

Here are some things things to keep in mind…..
As most of you are aware, reforms to the Massachusetts Criminal Offender Record Law go into effect on May 4, 2012. This law imposes significant new obligations on Massachusetts employers conducting criminal background checks and will require employers to reassess their current practices. In addition to the statutory reforms, the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services recently issued Proposed Regulations that provide additional guidance regarding employers’ obligations under the new statute, impose additional requirements, and specifically address the role of Consumer Reporting Agencies in obtaining criminal history information.  The attached Strategy & Insights Memo provides a detailed analysis of the new CORI law, the proposed regulations and the steps that employers need to take to comply with these new requirements.

For more complete information involving the updates to the CORI search, please go to the Seyfarth Shaw, LLP Website.  They offer a more thorough understanding of what to consider when ordering the CORI from employment background checks.

Wells Fargo Bank recently discovered some of their employees were more than they claimed to be.  Some of the bank employees where convicted criminals who liked about their previous transgressions with the law.  However, background checks revealed that the employees were in fact lying about their pasts.  Wells Fargo has dismissed them for past criminal records concerning dishonesty and breach of trust.

According to the article in the Sun Herald…”The decision to terminate team members over criminal matters that occurred prior to their employment with Wells Fargo may seem tough – we recognize that these situations are difficult for everyone involved – but laws and regulations related to the employment of bank employees are designed to protect the interests of all consumers who put their trust in financial service companies.

As an insured depository institution, Wells Fargo is bound by Section 19 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act that prohibits us from hiring or continuing the employment of any person who we know has a criminal record involving dishonesty or breach of trust – regardless of when the incidents occurred. This includes convictions as well as situations where the person has agreed to enter into a pretrial diversion or similar program in connection with a prosecution for such an offense, even if the charges ultimately are dismissed. Wells Fargo has been performing thorough background checks on all its team members – regardless of when they were hired – which includes a fingerprint check with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.”

The decision to terminate team members over criminal matters that occurred prior to their employment with Wells Fargo may seem tough – we recognize that these situations are difficult for everyone involved – but laws and regulations related to the employment of bank employees are designed to protect the interests of all consumers who put their trust in financial service companies.

As an insured depository institution, Wells Fargo is bound by Section 19 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act that prohibits us from hiring or continuing the employment of any person who we know has a criminal record involving dishonesty or breach of trust – regardless of when the incidents occurred. This includes convictions as well as situations where the person has agreed to enter into a pretrial diversion or similar program in connection with a prosecution for such an offense, even if the charges ultimately are dismissed. Wells Fargo has been performing thorough background checks on all its team members – regardless of when they were hired – which includes a fingerprint check with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

As a bank, it is realistic to assume Wells Fargo has conducted comprehensive background checks on its employment candidates.   Apparently, from the article, they also conduct recurring background checks, which larger companies perceive as advisable.  It is one thing to clear an employment candidate, but then what about those employees who are convicted after finding work?  What then?”  With Wells Fargo, of course, there are compliance standards that must be met–Section 19 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.  As for other, larger corporate entities, what are their policies on conducting recurring background checks on current employees?

In certain employment positions in sensitive industries, technology, aerospace, financial, it may well pay to conduct periodic background checks.   Since the recession, more than a few employees have gotten themselves into trouble and have committed desperate acts.  Some were in-house employee theft, which was ultimately discovered by the employer.  And some of the criminal activity was outside the office, who may have called in sick for several days to explain their sudden absence.

Anyway, here lies a cautionary tale.

We moved.  Finally.  Rule of thumb…whatever content you think you have for moving, multiply it by five.

Corra Group has moved in to its larger office space in order to better service its growing list of clients. The employment background checking service is now headquartered at 201 Continental Blvd, Suite 107, El Segundo, California.

“We are in at last,” said Nick Gustavson, Co-Founder of Corra Group. “As is always the case with moving an office, it took longer than we thought and there were the typical speed bumps. But now we are here, set up and ready to go.

“The larger office space will better enable us to facilitate our client growth,” said Gustavson. “El Segundo has long been a busy friendly city with such notables as Chevron, Mattel, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon as our neighbors. It’s a really great coastal town. There are a number of media and technology companies, such as Rhythm and Hues and Stamps.Com, surrounding us and in the adjacent business parks. Because the area is so attractive, we will be able to recruit from a deep and knowledgeable employment pool.”

For the complete release go to this link

Here is an interesting article regarding the controversy over employers who are requesting their job applicants’ Facebook Passwords in order to monitor this social media function.   While social media reviews can be helpful, there are also things to consider, including invasion of privacy issues and FCRA compliance standards.

Facebook itself made a statement that its members not be required to provide to prospective employers their user id and password information.  Facebook, in a statement, regards this as private information.

My own thoughts concern the value standards as to what would constitute a negative review of an employment candidate’s social media background check?   Some aspects of that background check are pretty obvious–i.e. bad mouthing other employers, former and current managers, etc.   But some information may just be personality indicators, may even reveal certain eccentricities, which of themselves do not necessarily nullify a job applicant’s skill sets or his ability to perform the job.

Here is the complete article…go to this link in the Wall Street Journal.

By a vote of four to one the EEOC approved a new series of guidelines to the way background checks for employment screening can be applied for each job applicant.  Here is the overview provided by knowledgeable law firm, Seyfarth and Shaw…

For the complete list please click on this link to the Seyfarth and Shaw webpage.

If you are an employer, this is required reading for your hiring officers.

Overview Of The EEOC’s Guidance

The EEOC’s Guidance is aimed at employers (best practices for employers are included), as well as for use by the EEOC’s staff. Undoubtedly, the concepts within it will also impact litigation issues in cases brought by the EEOC over use of criminal background checks in the hiring process, especially the EEOC’s high profile litigation alleging systemic violations under Title VII against African-American and Hispanic applicants.

While not binding on employers, because the EEOC will be enforcing Title VII with this Guidance in mind, employers are well advised to consider adjusting their use of criminal history in accordance with it. This is especially true given that Commissioner Ishimaru stated in his remarks at the public meeting this morning that the EEOC was currently investigating hundreds of cases where employers illegally (allegedly, according to the EEOC) used criminal history in employment decisions. This comes on the heels of the EEOC’s high profile $3.13 million settlement with Pepsi earlier this year in a hiring discrimination case over the use of criminal background checks.

The Guidance starts from the premise that “national data support a finding that criminal record exclusions have a disparate impact” and has roots in EEOC’s E-RACE (Eradicating Racism and Colorism in Employment) Initiative. The Guidance also cites studies finding that criminal records are often incomplete and inaccurate. Today’s release follows two previous releases by the EEOC on the subject in 1987 and 1990 and two public meetings. See November 20, 2008 Meeting on Employment Discrimination Faced by Individuals with Arrest and Conviction Records. Most recently, on July 26, 2011, the EEOC had a meeting again revisiting the use of arrest and conviction records in employment.

What an Employer Can Ask

Taking a cue from state “ban the box” laws, the EEOC’s Guidance recommends that employers not ask about convictions on applications. If and when they are made, inquiries about convictions should be limited to those which are job-related.

Many employers currently ask about convictions in a blanket fashion or with minimal exclusions required by state laws. Per the Guidance, employers should review job applications and pre-employment inquiries based.

Arrest Records

The Guidance makes clear that use of arrest records is not job related and consistent with business necessity. The Guidance, however, states that an employer may make a decision on the underlying conduct if the conduct makes the individual unfit for a position. The Guidance does not specifically discuss how, if at all, pending records are different from arrests, except to state that a person can be placed on an unpaid administrative leave while an employer investigates the underlying facts.

Factors To Consider When Evaluating Criminal History

It is no surprise that the EEOC reinforced its earlier position that bright line policies relating to the use of criminal history will be unlawful. The good news is that the Guidance does not contain any rule specifically limiting an employer’s ability to consider recent criminal records, or only a specified list of offenses – which many thought would be contained in the Guidance. Rather, the Guidance gives more insight into the factors that were originally set forth in the February 4, 1987 EEOC Policy Statement on the Issue of Conviction Records under Title VII, as well as adding some additional factors to be considered, specifically an individualized assessment.

Here is one that I would think will go on to the higher courts.   Florida Governor, Rick Scott, proposed that all 85,000 Florida State workers have drug tests.

The judge rejected the proposal. He ruled that the Governor provided no evidence of a drug problem among Florida State Workers.

According to an article in NBC Miami…”The ACLU and a government worker’s union also filed a lawsuit last year challenging Scott’s order to drug test state employees, saying the testing violates the Fourth Amendment by subjecting state workers to an unreasonable search without adequate suspicion that they used drugs. Scott, who suspended drug testing for state employees in June, said he will appeal Thursday’s ruling.

“As I have repeatedly explained, I believe that drug testing state employees is a common sense means of ensuring a safe, efficient and productive workforce,” Scott said in a statement. “That is why so many private employers drug test, and why the public and Florida’s taxpayers overwhelmingly support this policy.”

Attorneys for the governor’s office had argued there is adequate statistical evidence in years of national studies about workplace drug use and its dangers to justify the order. They also reasoned that employees aren’t being forced to take state jobs and that they can find employment elsewhere if they don’t want to be drug tested.”

It should be noted that this ruling pertains to the drug testing of public employees.  There is no modification of the law where drug tests can be mandated by private employers.  Healthcare facilities and other areas in the private sector typically regulate mandatory drug testing as part of their employment screening programs.

For those conducting background checks for employment screening purposes, please take note of the following change in court procedure in San Luis Obispo County, California.

As previously notified, the court In San Luis Obispo, California has removed the public index, leaving all searches to be run through a court clerk.  This process can result in delays as researchers do not have immediate access to country criminal records or county civil records.   Our researchers must instead present their requests to the court clerk.

A sincere thank you for your patience through this court transition.

Los Angeles, CA (PRWEB) April 19, 2012

Corra Group, the Los Angeles based background checking service, will soon be moving its corporate headquarters from its current location in the Marina Del Rey. On May 1st, 2012 the company will occupy a larger office space in El Segundo, California.

“We are really excited about the move,” said Nick Gustavson, Co-Founder of Corra Group. “We spent months looking, before we found just the right building. The new office space will facilitate our growth as we hire additional personnel and expand our services. Corra Group specializes in employment screening. But in the recent years we have developed other related channels, including corporate researchand financial vetting.

For the complete press release click on this link.

Here is an interesting article and something you don’t see every day.   A nationally famous restaurateur is sued by a former manager for workplace abuse and sexual harassment.  Along with the law suit were allegations of racial discrimination.

Most of the charges were directed at Earl “Bubba: Hiers, Paula Deen’s brother and operator of Uncle Bubba’s Seafood and Oyster House, Inc.

According to the article in the  Savannah Morning News…”Deen lawyer Gregory Hodges argued for the gag order, claiming the suit was meant to force a $1.25 million settlement under threat to the Deen brand’s reputation. Jackson alleges that Hiers sexually harassed her regularly and at times left her with a “reasonable fear of bodily injury with apparent ability to inflict such harm.”

The article reported…”In her 13-page answer filed Tuesday, Deen’s lawyers said Jackson’s claims against Paula Deen and Deen defendants were “scurrilous and false claims,” including alleged acts that occurred more than two years prior to the filing of the suit and would be barred by Georgia’s statute of limitations.”

“The suit lists as defendants Paula Deen, Paula Deen Enterprises LLC, The Lady & Sons LLC, the Lady Enterprises Inc., Earl W. “Bubba” Hiers and Uncle Bubba’s Seafood and Oyster House Inc.”

This is a employment related lawsuit that will be interesting to see how it unfolds.

You could be hiring an industrial terrorist.  Someone who wants to do harm to your company, specifically, and your industry in general.  Someone who believes they have higher minded purposes and moral leverage, so they can expose all the professed evil doing within your business environment.

Here is an interesting concept…you are in an industrial sector related to animals, cosmetics, whatever, where controversial testing and practices leave you, the employer, open to added scrutiny and embarrassment.  You hire someone, thinking they are a good fit for the job at hand.  They tell you how eager they are to be there, how much they want the job.  And then you see their secret video tape on the Internet or on the news where your practices are exposed for all to see.  Not good.  Very costly.

So now, according to an article on Bloomberg Business Week… “ Undercover investigations of animal abuse and unsanitary farm conditions would be outlawed in eight states, including Iowa and New York, under an expanding effort by legislators who say the exposes malign livestock industries.

Montana, North Dakota and Kansas have already passed “ag gag” laws to thwart whistle-blowers, who have targeted Tyson Foods Inc., McDonald’s Corp. and Yum! Brands Inc.’s KFC chicken suppliers. Iowa and New York are debating similar legislation, as is Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Nebraska and Utah.

Measures in those states, backed by Monsanto Co. and other agriculture companies, would halt activists from using deceptive practices to target producers in the $74 billion-a-year U.S. beef industry, or the $45 billion poultry business, as well as other businesses. Animal-rights groups such as the Humane Society of the United States contend food safety will be compromised if abusive and unsanitary practices go unexposed.”

So no more side show/freak show secret videos where you can’t turn your head away from the ugly portrayal of mass food processing.  According to the article, such exposes have a notable effect on the decline of demand for certain foods.   Who wants to eat chicken, after seeing the still live chicken ripped apart by a slicing machine that was just out of alignment?   Or so the belief.  There have been closures of slaughter houses. There have been recalls of massive amounts of beef.

According to the article…”A proposal introduced last month in Nebraska would require cruel treatment to be reported within 12 hours, preventing those who go undercover of the time it takes to amass evidence, according to animal rights groups.”

Clearly, one person’s industrial terrorist is another person’s hero.  Exposure of cruelty in slaughter houses and packing plants have led to more humane practices.   Companies such as Chipotle and MacDonald’s have demanded their suppliers practice better treatment of the animals, including outside pens and gestation sectors that do not seem overly cruel.

But law makers and industry leaders claim the videos and claims that go with them are one side and misleading.  The whistle blowers are not being fair with their depictions.  But then that is the purpose of whistle blowers.

The thing is an ounce of prevention may be worth the proverbial pound of cure.  Background checks will often reveal an employment candidate’s affiliations and practices that may be a red flag for hiring.  Reference Verification may prove enlightening.

Morally and ethically, it’s a tough call.  Animal rights groups certainly see it their way.  Livestock companies offer a different perspective.   At the end of the day, there are two sides of the issue and nine different perspectives on this entire issue.  But like other things that are highly charged and controversial, people will see it as they wish to.

However, the prospective employee may have on objective, one very different from the potential employer.  The employer has something else in mind.  Tough call.   As for the laws being passed or being proposed, we will have to see how it all plays out.