Corra Group Has Moved to Its New El Segundo, California Office Space

Thu, May 10th, 2012 - 2:28 pm - By Gordon Basichis

No Comments »


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

 

Facebook Passwords and Employment Background Checks

Thu, May 3rd, 2012 - 1:55 pm - By Gordon Basichis

No Comments »


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.

EEOC Approves New Employment Guidelines for Background Checks

Tue, May 1st, 2012 - 5:52 am - By Gordon Basichis

1 Comment »


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.

Florida Judge Rules Drug Testing for State Workers Unconstitutional.

Thu, April 26th, 2012 - 12:22 pm - By Gordon Basichis

1 Comment »


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.

 

« Previous PageNext Page »