By Kevin Connell, Founder & Chairman, AccuScreen.com

The five-member EEOC Commission is tasked with the job of administering Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and in their most recent meeting on April 25, the Commission itself was battling within itself over why they were even meeting that day to vote on New Guidance on Criminal Background Checks , it was Commissioner against Commissioner. As Commissioner Barker asked: “So why is this (New Guidance) even on the agenda today?”

Maybe it was because it was Democratic Commissioner Stuart J. Ishimaru’s last EEOC meeting? Ishimaru had made his resignation announcement weeks before the April 25th meeting. In fact, you got the sense from the meeting, that it was not an official U.S. federal agency meeting taking place, but a “going away party” for Mr. Ishimaru. Although Ishimaru was leaving the EEOC, he was not leaving Washington, as the 55 year old with the long pony tale has worked his entire life in Washington, he was just leaving one agency for another, Ishimaru’s income is still 100% taxpayer-funded. On April 30th, it was announced that Ishimaru was now the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) as the head of the newly established Office of Minority & Women Inclusion (OMWI).

The EEOC was asked by the very committee responsible for their funding to hold off and make no changes. It was very clear, the EEOC was told to hold off and allow a 6 month period for Americans and American employers to provide comments and feedback on any new proposed changes to guidance that the EEOC was contemplating. The committee that determines EEOC’s funding each year is under the direction of Chairs Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD) and the Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) and the Senate Appropriations committee subcommittee on commerce justice and science.

In addition, in a letter to the Office of Management Control (OMB), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce asked the that the OMB  require the EEOC to allow a review by the OMB and public input before the EEOC prepares to issue any new guidance. There was also a request made by nearly 50 American Business Associations to the EEOC asking the same, a public review and public commenting period. If this all seems a simple and reasonable request, it’s because it is, it’s all very reasonable, and it is very little to ask for an agency that is supposed to be serving the public. However, it made sense to everyone, except the EEOC, they had their own agenda. 

The EEOC chaired by Democratic Commissioner Jacqueline A. Berrien, “gave the bird” to everyone and went ahead and issued their new guidance at the objection of everyone on April 25.  And here is the dirty little secret that the EEOC doesn’t want you to know about,  and it’s cleverly buried in its 52 page guidance of confusing jargon, contracticting language, vague instructions, and Washington double-speak. Pay close attention to these words that are written inside the document:

“The Commission recommends that employers not ask about (criminal) convictions on job applications.”    

Said another way, the agenda of some that are on the Commission is to not ask about or run a criminal background check on anyone for any reason.                                                               

And there it is, the secret agenda of the EEOC. The EEOC would ban background checks if they could, not because it makes any sense, business or otherwise, it just make sense to them. This is not true of everyone with the EEOC, certainly not anyone who has ever worked for a small business like dissenting Commissioner Constance S. Barker, she is one of the few who have any “real world” business experience on the EEOC Commission.  However, others in the EEOC seem to have the opinon that you don’t really need to run a criminal background check on anyone and I include the recently departed Commissioner Ishimaru as one who holds this opinion. I wonder if Mr. Ishimura would hold the same opinion if it was him hiring someone to watch over his own son or daughter? Or if he was about to to hire a caretaker for an aging parent or grandparent? I presume that the EEOC could not legally use  the word ban in their new guidance, so they did what they thought was the next best thing, they would just  “recommend.” It is the only time that the word “recommend” is used in the entire 52 page document. Mind you, the EEOC has no legislative powers, they are not lawmakers, they are not from the legislative branch, and you will see this topic being argued in the transcript below of Commissioner Barker.

The other interesting observance that day on that April 25th meeting was Chairman’s Berrien’s remarks at the very beginning, she made it a point to acknowledge that is was Administrative Professional’s Day that day and Administrative Professional’s week, the unofficial secular holiday observed in some parts of the world.

What’s interesting was not for what she said, but for what she did not say that morning, and that particular week; you see, that week was April 22-28 2012, and that week commemorates National Crime Victims’ Rights Week. As in society much of  the focus is on the those who have committed crimes and none given to the victims; millions of crime victims and their families and friends seem to forgotten, their voices fallen on deaf ears, the crime victims are not even acknowledged during the very week set aside to honor them - National Crime Victims’ Rights week.  You could say that the EEOC is guilty of practicing the kind of discrimination that the agency was created to prevent.

By Kevin Connell, CEO & Chariman, AccuScreen.com

The following is a Transcript from the EEOC Commission Meeting:  April 25 2012 Washington, D. C.  of the Statement & Vote from Commissioner Constance S. Barker

 “I object to and will vote against the new guidance for criminal background checks for four fundamental reasons:

First and foremost, I object to the utter and blatant lack of transparency in the approval process. The proposed revision before us today represents a major shift in the advice that we have given the American public for the past 22 years. Yet we are about to approve this dramatic shift in our interpretation of the rights of job applicants in the obligations under Title VII without circulating it to the American public for review and discussion. There is absolutely no justification for totally excluding the American people from this process or for this blatant failure to be transparent in how we conduct business. I am devoted to the issue of civil rights and the work of this commission. But if we vote to approve this guidance today, how can we expect the American people to have confidence that this agency operates openly and with full transparency. We are public servants, we work for the American people, what could possibly justify keeping them from knowing what is in this document before we approve it? This proposed new guidance which in reality is a kind of regulation has tremendous implications for Americans. It is exactly the type of policy shift that we should share with the American people. Ask them to take a look and tell us what they think, have we forgotten anything? Have we explained things well or is it confusing? And most importantly, how will this impact you? But we didn’t do that. Instead the document was rapidly brought to a vote without the American people ever having a chance to see what was in it. This is just plain wrong. There are people in this commission room today and throughout America who have considerable expertise in the subject of guidance this addresses, yet we are about to give approval without ever letting any of these experts or the public at large see a single word that is contained, and we are approving it without submitting it to OMB for expert review that begs the question, WHY? Why don’t we want America to see what is in this document before we make it final. We should have spent months reviewing and discussing this with the public as we have other regulatory and subregulatory documents. Yes, the commission did have a meeting on background checks and heard form stakeholders on the general subject of the pros and cons of conducting criminal background checks.

But seeking general input is a far cry from sharing what is actually in the actual proposed revised guidance. As soon as the revised guidance was drafted, the public was shut out.

Two, here is my second concern; it is my understanding that the Senate Appropriations committee subcommittee on commerce justice and science, the committee that determines our funding each year under the direction of Chairman Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) in the report attached to the appropriations bill specifically address their concerns about the haste with which the commission approved changes to the current criminal background check guidance and specifically instructed the commission to
a.)     Encage stakeholders in discussion about the intended changes to the criminal background check guidance and
b.)     Circulate any proposed changes to the guidance for public input for at least 6 months before bringing it before the commission for a vote.
When the Senate Appropriations committee, the committee that controls our funding attaches to the bill that will determine our funding specific instructions to hold off on taking any action on this guidance until we have circulated a copy to the public for at least 6 months, it seems to me that we should take that seriously. So why is this even on the agenda today? Are we seriously going to ignore this directive from the committee that provides our funding? Especially, and here’s the irony, there is absolutely no need to take action on this today or any time in the near future. What is the big rush to approve this guidance? What would justify ignoring a Senate Appropriations directive and ignoring our obligation to be transparent with the American people? There have been no changes in Title VII, no Supreme Court decisions that would compel a single change to our current guidance. In contrast, our guidance on the use of arbitration agreements and employment contracts has been out of date since the first Supreme Court decision on that in 1991. As far as I know, there is no effort being made to circulate a revision of that guidance or bring it before the commission for a vote.

Thirdly, I object to the guidance because it so obviously exceeds rescind procedural regulations we have no…  < note from transcriber: unable to transcribe a couple or few words here – audio becomes inaudible for a second or two>… we are an enforcement agency; we have the authority to issue, amend, and rescind procedural regulations. We have no authority to make substantive changes to the law by issuing guidance that goes beyond what is contained in the statutes as interpreted by the court. Our job is to call congressional intent interpretations, not make new law. No matter how well intentioned we may be. No matter how much a change in law may be warranted. We simply lack the authority to make those changes to the issuance of guidance. It is congress’s job, not ours to weigh the pros and cons proposed in legislation and approve or disapprove it in congress. We are not part of the legislative branch. It is the job of the court to interpret the laws that congresses pass. We are not the courts; we are not part of the judicial branch. It is our job to explain what is already the law, not to expand it, no matter how much some of us may want Title VII to provide additional protection. We cannot use our authority to issue new guidance to create new rights of protection that Title VII does not provide; if we think Title VII should be expanded, we should make our concerns known to congress, not take it upon ourselves to do congress’s job.

Finally, I oppose the guidance because of the reach and impact it will have on American Businesses. Last night, I tried to read the guidance as a business owner would read it. What I came up with over and over again was if I were a business owner, no matter what business I was in, I would never again conduct another criminal background check on a potential employee unless I was required to under Federal law. Not just state law, but Federal law. I understand all of the well-intentioned reasons for drafting the revised guidance but I question whether it will achieve what it attempts to achieve. I am afraid the reality is the only real impact the new guidance will have is to scare business owners from ever conducting criminal background checks thus the unintended consequences will be each of the business owners we all agree should be conducting criminal background checks simply will not, why should they? The guidance tells them they are taking a tremendous risk if they do. The guidance tells them that even if they are no discriminating and if they are treating all races and ethnicities equally, they could be found guilty of unintentional discrimination under disparate impact theory. All this new guidance does is puts American business owners between a rock and a hard place, conduct criminal background checks to protect employees and members you serve then risk having to defend your actions. Don’t conduct criminal background checks and you take the risk an employee or member of the public will be harmed. This is no help to American business owners.

In summary, I object to the utter lack of transparency in the development of this guidance, I object to the inexcusable way the public has been intentionally shut out of the process. I object to the unnecessary haste to which this document has been pushed through and I object to the burden it places on business owners. I strongly oppose the guidance and will vote against it. Thank you.”

TRANSCRIPT of Commissioner Constance S Barker as she VOTED NO on Proposed Guidance on Employer’s Use of Arrest and Conviction Records

Kevin Connell, AccuScreen CEO in a ” LIVE” complimentary Webinar on May 1st @ 2 PM EST will unravel and translate what the new guidance issued by the EEOC means for Hiring Managers and Employers in the Use of Arrest & Conviction Records in the Screening & Hiring Process. Due to the Popularity of the Connell’s first  EEOC webinar on April 27 that “SOLD OUT” he is offering this **free** ENCORE Webinar to this who missed out on last week’s webinar!! (Hurry, Limited Spaces!!)

TAMPA FL / April 30, 2012 –  AccuScreen.com, a global employment screening services company will host a webinar to help educate employers on the EEOC’s new guidance on conducting an employee criminal background check on a webinar this Tuesday May 1st at 2:00 PM EST.

Connell will review exactly what is contained in the 52 page document released by the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on April 25th. The Commission states that their purpose was to update the Enforcement Guidance on employer use of arrest and conviction records in employment decisions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Commission voted 4-1 to approve the guidance document. Commissioner Constance Smith Barker voted NO.

Those interested in attending this complimentary webinar can register online at: http://www.accuscreen.com/webinars/

Those who cannot attend the webinar are encouraged to register for the event as a complimentary “Tips for Employers: What You Need to Know about the EEOC’s New Guidance on Criminal Background Checks,’ will be made available to all webinar registrants.

Kevin Connell is available for comment on this subject. For interview inquiries, contact Sue Marriott at 1.800.689.2228 ext. # 1100 or SueMarriott@AccuScreen.com.

EEOC New Guidance on conducting an Employee Criminal Background Check: AccuScreen CEO Hosts Webinar on April 27th

Kevin Connell, AccuScreen CEO will unravel and translate what the new guidance issued by the EEOC means for Hiring Managers and Employers in the Use of Arrest & Conviction Records in the Screening & Hiring Process.

TAMPA FL / April 26, 2012 –  AccuScreen.com, a global employment screening services company will host a webinar to help educate employers on the EEOC’s new guidance on conducting an employee criminal background check on a webinar this Friday April 27 at 11:00 AM EST.

Connell will review exactly what is contained in the 52 page document released by the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on April 25th. The Commission states that their purpose was to update the Enforcement Guidance on employer use of arrest and conviction records in employment decisions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Commission voted 4-1 to approve the guidance document. Commissioner Constance Smith Barker voted NO.

Those interested in attending this complimentary webinar can register online by clicking here.

Those who cannot attend the webinar are encouraged to register for the event as a complimentary “Tips for Employers: What You Need to Know about the EEOC’s New Guidance on Criminal Background Checks,’ will be made available to all webinar registrants.

Kevin Connell is available for comment on this subject. For interview inquiries, contact Sue Marriott at 1.800.689.2228 ext. # 1100 or SueMarriott@AccuScreen.com.

The EEOC has announced today through the Federal Register that it will hold a meeting this Wed April 25 @ 9:30 AM.

Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The location of the meeting will be at the Commission Meeting Room on the First Floor of the EEOC Office Building, 131 “M” Street NE., Washington, DC 20507.

Kevin Connell CEO of AccuScreen.com will be providing a complimentary “LIVE” webinar that will recap the EEOC’s announcements, the webinars will be held on Thursday April 26.

There will be two times offered to choose from the first 1.) 11:00  AM EST ( 8:00 AM Pacific) and the second  2.) 4:00 PM EST ( 1:00 PM Pacific), again, this will serve as a recap of the EEOC’s annouincement, there will be Q & A. This is very important as the EEOC’s announcement will impact thousands of employers from across the country.

Social Media Username & Privacy Protection Bill
by Kevin Connell – April 13, 2012

Annapolis, MD – On Tuesday April 10, the State of Maryland became the first state in the nation to pass a law protecting potential employees’ Facebook and other social media pages with an electronic privacy law that will take effect on October 1, 2012.

Maryland had this on the legislative agenda a year ago, but the bill died as the legislative year ended.

I call this the Facebook No Snoop Law, however, the formal name coined in MD is the User Name and Password Privacy Protection and Exclusions bill, which prohibits all employers in the state from requesting or requiring an employee or applicant to disclose any personal login information on an applicant or employee’s Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest or other Social Media account.

Requests for social media passwords to sites such as Facebook have consistently made news over the past three years, it was only a matter of time for this type of legislature to debut, other states with social networking privacy bills include: California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Minnesota, look fo more states to join this list.

Social media websites such as Facebook have publicly opposed the practice of employers snooping on applicant and employees social media websites, in fact, it is a direct violation that is contained in Facebook’s terms of use, these terms are rarely read by most individuals.

According to Facebook’s statement of rights and responsibilities, users “will not share your password, let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account.”

No Maryland companies are excluded from the act, though enforcement will be left up to the employers and their applicants, the bill now awaits governor O’Malley’s signature.

Kevin Connell is CEO and Founder of AccuScreen.com; a global employment background screening firm headquartered in Tampa, FL. He is an author, speaker and a frequent Television & Radio guest, appearing on over 127 television and radio channels, including Fox News and ABC News Money Matters. For more information: www.AccuScreen.com or www.KevinConnell.com

We are inviting you to a special webinar entitled “Social Media Background Checks: The 7 Commandments of Using Facebook in the Screening Process”

Date: December 20th, 2011 Tuesday

Time: 2:00 PM EST until 3:00 PM EST

There have been many recent high-profile cases involving an increase in the restrictions put on Employer’s use of Social Media in Hiring and Screening, as well as Employer’s regulation and response to Employee Comments made on Social Media sites, such as Facebook. The NLRB has challenged as unlawful an employer’s discipline of an employee who made comments on a social media site. Whether you want to use sites like Facebook to screen out employees via a social media background check, or use social media sites to monitor your employee’s social media activity, discipline them for what they post, or simply maintain rules that arguably regulate employee conduct, all employers need to understand the evolving rules coming from the NLRB. Additionally, real world practical tips and insider secrets will be shared by Kevin Connell, a social media savvy background check expert. This webinar is a Pre-Approved HRCI Certified Webinar.

Register HERE for this Complimentary Webinar

Background screening expert available to provide tips for a safe holiday season

Tampa, FL, December 9, 2011 – Visiting Santa at the mall is a cherished holiday tradition for most families. Kids instinctively trust the jolly old fellow in the red suit. But did you ever stop to think who might be lurking behind Santa’s false beard?

Kevin Connell is America’s leading background screening expert, dubbed the “Human Lie Detector” by Fox News. He has seen his share of con men and crooks that use false identities (including Santa’s) to commit new crimes. Connell conducts criminal and sexual offender background checks for retail chains and malls that are hiring seasonal employees.

“Santa Claus is an institution. There are lots of great stories and movies about him,” Connell said. “Unfortunately, some bad people take advantage of seasonal opportunities and turn an uplifting season into a parent’s worst nightmare.”

Connell has nearly 20 years of experience as founder and CEO of AccuScreen.com, which specializes in pre-employment background screening and drug testing services. A nationally-known speaker and author, Connell has appeared on ABC News, Fox News and more than 172 radio and TV shows.

Connell helps his audience stay alert and safe. He shares cautionary tales of shady Santa’s, including a New Jersey actor who was arrested by Interpol for producing child pornography and abusing young boys.

In his interview segments and speaking engagements, he reveals:

* Why “Santa Claus” is an alias many criminals use when they’re arrested.
* Warning signs to look out for when shopping online and at the mall.
* Why many companies cut corners and take risks when hiring new employees.
* How to avoid common holiday scams, from fraudulent eBay offers to bait-and-switch sales.

Connell is available to speak on this timely and important topic both in the Tampa, Florida area and nationwide, in person or via telephone.

CONTACT:
Sue Marriott – Media Relations
(813) 837-1920 Ext 1100 (FL)
suemarriott@AccuScreen.com
www.accuscreen.com

Don’t trust your body to just anyone. Now, that may sound like common sense, but many people, including the rich and famous, have been bilked out of their hard-earned dollars—and their health—by scam artists intent on manipulating the human desire for beauty into a personal profit.

Most recently print and television news sources have been buzzing with the story of a Miami, Florida man named Oneal Ron Morris. Morris, 30, was arrested November 18th and charged with, among other things, practicing healthcare without a license. Why? For a mere $700.00, Morris promised his female clients more shapely buttocks by performing a simple cosmetic surgery procedure. The procedure? Morris injected his victims with a cocktail of mineral oil, super glue, and Fix-a-Flat.

To add insult to injury, and as may already be obvious, Morris is not a licensed cosmetic surgeon. As a matter of fact, he is not a medical professional of any kind. He has however been bestowed with the moniker Dr. Fix-a-Flat.

But, it’s not only people who are too cash strapped to afford top-of-the-line cosmetic surgery that fall prey to fake docs like Morris. Women like Priscilla Presley, Shawn King, and Diane Richie have also been victims of charming con artists.

Several years ago, when the who’s who of Hollywood included Botox parties—gatherings during which one doctor injected several clients at a time—as a part of their repertoire, Argentinean lothario, Dr. Daniel Serrano (not licensed in the U.S.), made the rounds, injecting clients with what he said was a better-than-Botox miracle drug. What he was actually using was industrial, low-grade silicone and a drug he smuggled from his home country; a drug that has not been approved by the FDA.

Serrano, nicknamed Dr. Jiffy Lube, and Morris not only left several women with serious disfigurations, they endangered the lives of people who trusted them. The chemical concoctions they used resulted in life-threatening conditions for several individuals.

As much as it may be easy to believe that only uneducated, low-income individuals fall prey to phony docs, the reality is that anyone can become a victim. People just don’t think to verify the license credentials of their healthcare providers.

Performing a background check on anyone who provides important services has become a must. Before putting your body, your money, and your health into the hands of anyone, make sure that you have done a thorough license credentials check. Contact a qualified identify verification service to explore your options regarding background checks for healthcare providers. Your life may depend on it.

Just when Adam Wheeler, the man convicted last year of fraud for lying his way into Harvard, thought it was safe to come out of the shadows, prosecutors in Middlesex, Massachusetts are asking that he serve his sentence as handed down by Superior Court Judge.

But, prosecutors aren’t just being petty, and they certainly couldn’t be accused of picking on Wheeler. Wheeler, originally ordered to serve 2 ½ years in jail, 10 years probation, pay restitution of more than $45,800, and to continue attending counseling for identity theft, resume lies, and other charges, appears to have forgone the lesson he learned (or should have learned) from his conviction in favor of the temptation of lying for profit once again.

Yes, Wheeler has taken the fraud route once again. He is an ideal model of why employment background checks are crucial.

Will Wheeler Ever Learn?
For those who don’t recall the story, Adam Wheeler, now 25, managed to weasel his way into Harvard by claiming to have had attended the prestigious Phillips Academy prep school in Andover and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Not one to fly under the radar to avoid detection, Wheeler, decided to shoot for Rhodes and Fulbright scholarships while at Harvard, citing co-authorship of several books, and by claiming to have taught numerous courses and lectures on what must have been an impressive application, with not your typical resume fraud. He was booted from Harvard in 2009.

With a never-give-up attitude, Wheeler dusted himself off and applied for admission to Stanford after his dismissal from Harvard. Stanford accepted Wheeler but also kicked him out after being alerted to his cons.

Caught Red Handed!
With a smile at his trial, Wheeler apologized to Harvard, his teachers, other students, and his friends. He also admitted to being “ashamed and embarrassed.” But, obviously, Wheeler wasn’t too embarrassed to give fraud another shot.

This enterprising young man now sits in jail awaiting a hearing in mid-November regarding the violation of his probation. So, did Wheeler, like so many other resume liars, stretch the truth a bit about his abilities or work history? Nope. Wheeler, in what can only be called an act of sheer arrogance, cited on a resume and in a cover letter that he attended Harvard University, a strict warning against which was issued as a condition of his probation.

It seems Wheeler lost his job over the summer and, in an effort to make his court-ordered restitution payments, he created resume lies to put himself in a better position than other applicants for the job. Just as he denied other students a position at Harvard, and then Stanford, Wheeler, once again, intended to deny someone more qualified than him the right to a position. This resume fraudster extraordinaire pulled out his pen and made some creative changes to his past.

The Lessons Wheeler Teaches
Wheeler may be a bit hard pressed to learn his own lessons, but he may serve as a shining example of why it’s important to tell the truth on a resume and, for employers, he highlights the need for performing a thorough pre-employment background check on each and every employee.

Potential employees lie. Not all of them, of course, but enough of them lie on job applications to warrant due diligence by employers. If Wheeler was the only individual to give resume fraud a shot, then employers wouldn’t have to look so intently for applicants who lie about a criminal past, tell tales about past employment, and present bogus educational credentials.

The reality for employers is this…
Resume lies aren’t going to magically go away. Because of this, it’s important for employers to protect themselves by partnering with a pre-employment screening agency with the experience to help employers protect themselves, and their employees, against the liability that can result from resume fraudsters.

Kevin Connell is Founder & CEO of AccuScreen.com www.accuscreen.com which has been providing pre-employment background checks on prospective and current employees since 1994. For additional Information & resources about Kevin Connell and AccuScreen’s services, please go to www.accuscreen.com or call AccuScreen.com (813)837-1920, Monday through Friday, 9:00 AM until 6:00 PM, Eastern Standard Time

The lead story on Fox 13 Nightly News was with CEO and President of AccuScreen.com, Kevin Connell. He was interviewed about the GOP Presidential candidate Herman Cain and the controversy surrounding Sexual Harassment claims made by former employees against Cain while he was with the National Restaurant Association.

November 2, 2011 ( Tampa, FL) AccuScreen.com’s CEO and Background Screening Expert Kevin Connell will be interviewed tonight on Fox News Edge about the Herman Cain dilemma & the Sexual Harassment charges made toward him.

The interview will center on the subject of Sexual Harassment and the accusations brought forth by former employees that worked under the Republican Presidential candidate when he was the CEO of the National Restaurant Association during the 1990’s.

This is an interview that you will not want to miss!

If you are not in the Tampa Bay area, no worries, we will be posting the link to the interview afterwards, the video will appear under www.AccuScreen.com/blog

Watch Fox News Edge tonight at 11:00 PM on Fox 13 Tampa Bay.

We are inviting you to a special webinar entitled “Social Media Background Checks: The 7 Commandments of Using Facebook in the Screening Process”

Date: November 3, 2011 Thursday

Time: 2:00 PM EST until 3:00 PM EST

There have been many recent high-profile cases involving an increase in the restrictions put on Employer’s use of Social Media in Hiring and Screening, as well as Employer’s regulation and response to Employee Comments made on Social Media sites, such as Facebook. The NLRB has challenged as unlawful an employer’s discipline of an employee who made comments on a social media site. Whether you want to use sites like Facebook to screen out employees via a social media background check, or use social media sites to monitor your employee’s social media activity, discipline them for what they post, or simply maintain rules that arguably regulate employee conduct, all employers need to understand the evolving rules coming from the NLRB. Additionally, real world practical tips and insider secrets will be shared by Kevin Connell, a social media savvy background check expert. This webinar is a Pre-Approved HRCI Certified Webinar.

Register HERE for this Complimentary Webinar