Fraud professional taught how to use the power of the Internet as an effective investigative research tool to a packed house on Tuesday, February 12

TAMPA, Fla. – Feb. 12, 2013 – Kevin Connell, chairman of AccuScreen, spoke at a dinner hosted by the http://www.tampabaycfe.org/ ACFE Tampa Bay Chapter this past Tuesday evening at 6:00 p.m. Eastern at the Marriott Tampa Westshore. His session illustrated in “non-technical terms” the most current, comprehensive and cutting-edge Internet research techniques available today. Finding the needed information isn’t simply a matter of entering the right keywords into a search engine.

The presentation opened up with a “Tour of Fraud Sites,” screen shots of actual websites that are used by fraudsters to assist them in their fraud schemes. These “fraud enabling” websites gave the attendees an idea of the extent of the fraud that happens. The remaining part of the presentation focused on Open Source Intelligence techniques to prevent or detect fraud for the fraud examiner’s case.

Acquiring useful and relevant http://www.accuscreen.com/blog/ Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) requires much more than just the ability to surf the Web – many valuable sources of intelligence are unknown and untapped. Most people “don’t know what they don’t know” about online searching and miss far more relevant information than they find. Attendees were taught how to go “off the beaten track” and develop a new range of skill sets, the end goal of making attendees more effective and efficient online was definitely reached. This was the “kit and caboodle” of Internet research, presented in layman’s terms.

From http://www.accuscreen.com/blog/ employment background screening, due diligence and public record checks to more in-depth “hidden” or “deep web” searches, having advanced Internet research and investigative skills is an essential requirement at all levels of a business enterprise, especially those that investigate fraud. Finding deep and hidden websites that return key intelligence while being in compliance with the law and privacy consideration is a skill needed for the anti-fraud professional.
The session was augmented by tips, insider secrets, checklists, examples and “real world” case studies that will helped attendees with information that was once considered unavailable and unreachable. Many of the websites shared in the session are free, but are unknown to most of the general population. Connell also covered some of the paid online database vendors.

Attendees learned how to:
• Conduct due diligence using the Web efficiently and legally
• Find more information in less time when online, and make better sense of it.
• Create advanced searches on popular search engines, as well as Meta Search engines ( searching by using a combination of several search engines)
• Search public record sources
• Mine social networking sites
• Analyze the information and be able to distinguish between reliable and unreliable information
• Narrow research and focus on the best resources
• Locate information on an individual or business

Attendees left with:
1) A renewed confidence in their Internet search know-how
2) The ability to find more useful & relevant information in less time
3) An advanced ability to conduct web searches that are legal and compliant
4) A list of websites and search tools linked to intelligence collection objectives
5) Proven search queries
6) Checklists for each step in the process

After this session, the attendees were able to:
• Utilize the Internet as an effective investigative research tool
• Conduct advanced Web research for use in http://www.accuscreen.com/blog/ online background checks, due diligence and public record research
• Perform Internet recruitment sourcing
Connell’s presentation qualified for one hour of CPE (Continuing Professional Education) for ACFE members.

Sarah Philipps (Middle) Julianne Kelly (shorts) 15 Elgin London. Video of Sarah with brother Fritz Philipps

24 Years ago today the tragedy of Pan Am 103 lingers, on this day in 1988, then 20 year old Sarah Philipps of Newton, MA (Newton North High School ’86) was seated in Seat 21F sitting next to her good friend Julianne F. Kelly of Dedham, MA (Dedham High School ’86) Seat 21E on their way home after completing the semester studying abroad with the Syracuse University study abroad program in London.

On December 21, 1988, 243 passengers, 16 crew members and 11 on the ground lost their lives when the Boeing 747 exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland from a terrorist’s bomb.

A life stolen before it really began, like the 20 children and other victims from the shooting rampage in Newtown, CT at Sandy Hook Elementary School, what contributions to society have we missed by these senseless killings? We will never know.

Remember the Victims, the Victim’s Parents, Families, and Friends of Pan Am 103, Sandy Hook Elementary School, and all of the other man-made genocides.

Sarah…you will never be forgotten…in loving memory of your precious life…

Sarah Susannah Buchanan Philipps

8/15/1968 – 12/21/88

“Death Leaves a Heartache No One Can Heal, Love Leaves a Memory No One Can Steal.”

Employee with Outstanding Warrant Kidnaps Boss & EEOC’s New Guidelines on Criminal Background Checks (Part three)

Let’s hypothetically say that Palermo fell under the protection of Title VII., even if the EEOC had gotten involved; their track record is inconsistent and the EEOC has been accused by many courts and employers for bringing forth investigations and lawsuits without any merit. Case in point, EEOC vs. Peoplemakr; this case began in 2008 after and African American by the name of Sherri Lynn Scott accused the company of having a blanket policy of not hiring anyone with a criminal record, and accordingly, the EEOC brought a lawsuit against Peoplemark for alleging that Peoplemark had a blanket policy for not hiring anyone with a criminal record. The Commissioner at the time was Stuart Ishamuru, who said during testimony at the time:

Peoplemark “had a policy that denied the hiring or employment of ANY (emphasis added to the word “any” by Ishamuru) person with a  criminal record and that this policy unlawfully discriminated against black people in violation of Title VII.”

However, as it turned out Papermark had in fact hired 22% of the 286 so-called victims despite having felony criminal records. During the entire 3 year lawsuit and investigation, the EEOC only produced one name and that was Sherri Lynn Scott. Ms.Scott applied for work at Peoplemark one month after getting out of prison for multiple Felony convictions, including Home Invasion and Larceny. The EEOC lost this case as well as $751,942.00 in attorney’s fees and expert witness fees, all payable to Peoplemark.

After all of the numerous examination and analysis of EEOC vs. Peoplemark, there isn’t much mentioned about the key plaintiff in this case who actually was responsible for getting the wheels in motion going in the EEOC’s investigation and litigation of Peoplemark, which leaves the questions, what ever happened to Sherri Lynn Scott? Turns out she has a lot in common with Chris Palermo. Both of them are felons, both have tempers, and both have multiple criminal records. But Sherri Scott was in a very high profile case with one of the government’s largest agencies, the EEOC. The EEOC might want you to forget about this case and Ms.Scott.

In the midst of EEOC vs. Peoplemark, Sherri Lynn Scott was arrested (and subsequently convicted) in Michigan on June 15, 2009 for Felonious Assault (aka Assault with a Dangerous Weapon). Ms.Scott was sentenced on September 21, 2009 and was sentenced to 1 ½ to 4 years in prison. Sherri Lynn Scott currently is on Parole, she was first paroled on September 21, 2011.

Time will tell if Ms.Scott will stay out of prison and can be gainfully employed. Palermo first must do his time before he is to get to the second chance stage. Ex-convicts face a range of challenges after release from prison; their biggest challenge can be finding a viable job. Here are just a few of the many organizations that help inmates after prison:

Safer Foundation www.saferfoundation.org

Second Chance www.secondchanceprogram.org

National H.I.R.E. (Helping Individuals with Criminal Records)

Network www.hirenetwork.org

Employee with Outstanding Warrant Kidnaps Boss & EEOC’s New Guidelines on Criminal Background Checks (Part two)

Wolfgram should have taken into consideration the three “Green” factors that the EEOC recommends when conducting criminal background checks, which was reiterated in the EEOC’s new guidance on criminal background checks on April 25, 2012. The Green factors are based on the court case Green vs. Missouri Pacific Railroad, 549 F. 2d 1158 (8th Cir. 1977); this case involved an employer who had a “blanket” policy of not hiring anyone convicted of a crime. The court ruled that this blanket no hire policy of convicts was unlawful because such policy would have a disparate impact on minorities who are arrested and convicted at a higher rate. The courts have also ruled that disparate impact can still occur so long as there is a solid business necessity to back up such policy and that there are other factors met as well. Specifically any business that does criminal background checks for employment should consider these three (3) factors (aka “Green’ factors):

1.)  Nature of Crime & Gravity of Offense
2.)  Nature of the Job Sought
3.) Time Elapsed since Criminal Conviction & Rehabilitation Completed

Fast forward to present day…as it turns out, the former employee Chris Palermo who is now serving time at the New Hampshire State Prison for Men for his crimes, has continued his criminal behavior, both in and out of jail.

Palermo, also known as Inmate # 12437, is incarcerated in the New Hampshire State Prison for Men. After he was first booked into the New Hampshire State prison system; his incarceration has been anything but normal; he has had numerous fights with prison guards,  the most recent of which happened in October of 2011, and has escaped from prison once already.

Palermo has developed a rebellious and litigious reputation in prison as he has penchant for fights and filing lawsuits, here are just a few…Palermo vs. Coos County, Palermo vs. the Merrimack New Hampshire Department of Corrections and Palermo vs. the New Hampshire Department of Prisons, Palermo vs. William Wrenn, Commissioner, New Hampshire Department of Corrections, not to mention at least 3 other lawsuits, the common theme in all of his lawsuits are his claim that his Civil Rights were violated.

Palermo’s own recidivism rate went up even before he was released from prison as he attempted to escape prison. Palermo was apprehended by authorities on February 7 after he was spotted driving from a local bar. Palermo was in Keene for an appearance at the Cheshire Circuit County courthouse when he escaped inside of a parking garage near City Hall. He was charged with attempt to commit escape, resisting arrest or detention; receiving stolen property; disobeying an officer; driving after license revocation or suspension. This little adventure has upgraded Palermo’s case to the Cheshire County Superior Court.

One question one might ask how would our current hiring laws and the EEOC’s new enforcement guidelines on criminal background checks effect Palermo whenever he is released from prison in New Hampshire?

The answer is that because Palermo does not fall under the protections of Title VII., the EEOC would not be involved with his case, if he feels he has been discriminated against and passed over because of his criminal record, however, most employers who conduct criminal background checks are consistent in their hiring policy implementation and practice and would hold Palermo to the same standard for consistency and apply the Green factors to him as well as any other job applicant.

To be Continued…

Employee with Outstanding Warrant Kidnaps Boss & EEOC’s New Guidelines on Criminal Background Checks

Back in 2007, Chris Palermo of Pittsburg, NH, a tiny town on the northern most part of New Hampshire was arrested after he kidnapped his boss, Jonathan Wolfgram. According to police reports, the employee Palermo forced his boss to drive him all the way to a train station in downtown Boston. According to the Wolfgram, once at the train station, the suspect (his employee) forced his boss to purchase a train ticket so that he, Palermo, could escape outstanding arrest warrants. Palermo told his boss that he knew where his father lived, and threatened to cause harm to him if he did not cooperate. The suspect reportedly said that he had hurt other people in the past. Palermo was arrested and charged with Kidnapping, Unlawfully Carrying a Dangerous Weapon, and Several Outstanding Warrants from Gloucester, Massachusetts.

Incredibly, Palermo, after being arrested in Boston, phoned in bomb threats from his Jail Cell in downtown Boston, which led to widespread panic and the evacuations of two New Hampshire police stations, a courthouse, and his place of employment, Moose Alley Auto. Police were also tipped off that several automobiles could be booby-trapped with explosives, specifically, the vehicles at his place of employment, Moose Alley Auto, owned by Wolfgram. This was first reported by WBZ in Boston.

Palermo, whose prior employment was in Gloucester Massachusetts as a fisherman, was charged during the previous autumn with stealing property in Lebanon, New Hampshire and was also wanted in Grafton County, New Hampshire for violating probation. Additionally, he had warrants for his arrest for failing to appear in court on numerous Assault and Battery cases in Gloucester, Massachusetts, which is in Essex County. Gloucester is the seaport where the fishing boat the Andrea Gail embarked on its tragic journey during the Perfect Storm of 1991, the tragic disaster was turned into a book in 1997 by Sebastian Junger and then Hollywood adapted it into a movie in 2000 starring George Clooney and Mark Wahlberg.

The “Perfect Storm” is also a cliché used in the workplace when an employee who did not undergo a criminal background check is unmasked, and disaster awaits like a ticking time bomb, a workplace violence incident is just one potential consequence when one ignores the past of a new hire. No doubt, a Perfect Strom was in the making with this fugitive from justice.

As reported at that time by the New Hampshire Union Leader:

The man whose bomb threats prompted a massive police response was sentenced to serve up to 7 years in the New Hampshire state prison.

Christopher Palermo, 30, of Pittsburg, NH was convicted on three counts of false reporting of explosives after a trial in Coos County Superior Court. At his sentencing hearing, Judge Timothy Vaughn sentenced Palermo to serve 3 1/2 to 7 years on all charges, with two of the charges suspended for 10 years.

Palermo was brought to trial after he called in bomb threats at the Pittsburg Police Department, the Colebrook District Court and a Pittsburg business owned by Jonathan Wolfgram.

The threats prompted a massive response effort, including 39 state troopers from as far away as barracks in Tamworth and Concord, New Hampshire, as well as Fish and Game conservation officers, local police and the U.S. Border Patrol.

Coos County Attorney Keith Clouatre said it was clear from the evidence presented at trial that Palermo “intended to frighten three separate locations with his false report and the crimes should be treated separately.”

Clouatre asked that Palermo receive a 3 1/2- to 7-year sentence on one charge, a suspended 3 1/2- to 7-year sentence on another, and a 1- to 3-year sentence on the third.

Public defender Kirk Williams urged a lighter sentence with a time-served sentence.

“I am willing to believe Mr. Palermo’s plea for drug counseling was legitimate, and I hope he receives some,” Clouatre said. “However, the chaos and sheer waste of manpower that he caused clearly calls for a prison sentence.”

Palermo was also sentenced to 2 to 5 years on a probation violation of a burglary charge out of Grafton County, New Hampshire when he committed these offenses.

This outrageous, yet this true story points out the importance of performing criminal background checks on prospective employees before you hire them. Wolfgram, the boss and unfortunate victim in this melee who was kidnapped could have prevented his ordeal by running a criminal background check on Palermo. Had he run a criminal background check, he would have discovered that Palermo had numerous criminal record convictions, as well as several outstanding warrants for his arrest, and accordingly, the employee, Palermo, would have never been hired.

To be Continued…

Workplace Violence: The Tragedy of PSA Flight 1771

A Look Back 25 Years Later

Most people know December 7th as Pearl Harbor Day, as President Roosevelt said at the time in his address to Congress, “…a date which will live in infamy.”

What many people don’t know is another tragedy that occurred on the same date just 25 years ago on December 7, 1987. On this date 43 people were killed in a horrible Workplace Violence catastrophe involving a disgruntled ex-employee by the name of David Burke.

As background, Burke had a criminal past with crimes involving drug trafficking, shoplifting and auto theft. He was also a coward who enjoyed beating up his girlfriend. Burke, at one time, had cut the wires to his girlfriend’s car and had a continuous history of beating her badly. Burke had even threatened to kill her; ultimately, she had taken out a restraining order against him.

Burke brought the same problems to work with him where he was employed at US Airways. Burke’s former boss Ray Thomson fired Burke after stealing $69.00 from the flight attendant’s cocktail cart. After the firing, Thomson even received death threats through his work voicemail from Burke.

One important task US Air forgot to do after they fired Burke was to take back his airline employee credentials, specifically his Airport ID badge, this would prove to be a deadly mistake. Another problem was that a mindless co-worker agreed to lend his 44 Mangum Revolver to Burke. They guy who lent the gun to Burke, did not know at the time Burke’s purpose in attaining the weapon, nor did he know Burke had no intentions of returning the gun.

On Monday December 7, 1987, David Burke went to Thomson’s office where his intentions were to appeal his firing. Burke demanded his job back but Thomson refused, Burke’s appeal was denied. Afterwards, Thomson was heading home from Los Angeles to San Francisco via Pacific Southwest Flight #1771 as he normally commuted back and forth to work on this flight. What Thomson did not know when he boarded his flight that day was that David Burke purchased a ticket and boarded the same flight, Burke smuggled the 44 Magnum Revolver onto the plane by using his airline employee badge still in his possession to bypass security and the LAX airport metal detectors. 

Of significance, Burke purchased a one-way seat; it did not matter to him where the flight was going, because no one would reach their destination that day. As the official FBI investigation revealed, when the plane reached an altitude of 22,000 feet, Burke fired two shots killing his former boss, Ray Thomson.

A note was found written on one of the plane’s air sickness bags that read:

“Hi Ray, I think it’s sort of ironical that we ended up like this. I asked for some leniency for my family. Remember? Well, I got none, and you’ll get none.”

The cockpit voice recorder (CVR) recorded the cockpit door opening and a flight attendant telling the pilots “We have a problem.” The Captain replied, “What kind of problem?” Suddenly a shot was fired killing the flight attendant, followed by Burke’s reply “I’m the problem,” then two more shots were fired killing both pilots.  Burke then pushed the flight column forward causing the BAe-146 aircraft to go supersonic and plummet to the ground, the CVR recorded increasing windscreen noise then seconds before crashing there was silence as the plane broke the sound barrier before disintegrating into the rocky hillside of cattle ranch at 4:16 PM pacific time in San Luis Obispo county, near Cayucos, California.
 
David burke would now be known as the perpetrator of the single worst Workplace Violence tragedy in US History.

On Thursday, December 13, 2012, the PSA Flight 1771 case will be examined during a Workplace Violence webinar entitled “Work Place Violence: The 7 New Truths.”

You can register for this webinar at the link below:

http://www.accuscreen.com/webinars

Space is limited, register today.

The following is the official report issued on 01/04/89 by the National Safety Board (www.NTSB.gov)

NTSB Identification: DCA88MA008.

The docket is stored on NTSB microfiche number 34799.

Scheduled 14 CFR PACIFIC SOUTHWEST AIRLINES

Accident occurred Monday, December 07, 1987 in SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA

Probable Cause Approval Date: 01/04/1989

Aircraft: BRITISH AEROSPACE BAE-146-200, registration: N350PS

Injuries: 43 Fatal.

NTSB investigators traveled in support of this investigation and used data obtained from various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.

A RECENTLY DISCHARGED USAIR EMPLOYEE BOARDED PSA FLT 1771 AFTER HAVING LEFT A GOODBYE MESSAGE WITH FRIENDS. HE BYPASSED SECURITY AND CARRIED ABD A BORROWED 44 CALIBER PISTOL. A NOTE WRITTEN BY THIS PSGR, FOUND IN THE WRECKAGE, THREATENED HIS FORMER SUPERVISOR AT USAIR, WHO WAS ABOARD THE FLT. AT 1613, THE PLT RPTD TO OAKLAND ARTCC THAT HE HAD AN EMERGENCY AND THAT GUNSHOTS HAD BEEN FIRED IN THE AIRPLANE. WITHIN 25 SECONDS, OAKLAND CTR CONTROLLERS OBSERVED THAT PSA 1771 HAD BEGUN A RAPID DESCENT FM WHICH IT DID NOT RECOVER. WITNESSES ON THE GND SAID THE AIRPLANE WAS INTACT AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF FIRE BEFORE THE AIRPLANE STRUCK THE GND IN A STEEP NOSE-DOWN ATTITUDE. THE CVR TAPE REVEALED THE SOUNDS OF A SCUFFLE AND SEVERAL SHOTS WHICH WERE APPARENTLY FIRED IN OR NEAR THE COCKPIT. THE PISTOL WAS FOUND IN THE WRECKAGE WITH 6 EXPENDED ROUNDS. FAA RULES PERMITTED AIRLINE EMPLOYEES TO BYPASS SECURITY CHECKPOINTS.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:

CONTROL INTERFERENCE..INTENTIONAL..PASSENGER

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:

SABOTAGE..INTENTIONAL..PASSENGER

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:

EMOTIONAL REACTION..PASSENGER

Contributing Factors
SECURITY..INADEQUATE..COMPANY/OPERATOR MANAGEMENT

Contributing Factors
PROCEDURE INADEQUATE..COMPANY/OPERATOR MANAGEMENT

Contributing Factors
INSUFF STANDARDS/REQUIREMENTS,OPERATION/OPERATOR..FAA(ORGANIZATION)

Human Resource Managers, Security professionals and Business leaders are invited to a Workplace Violence webinar this Thursday December 13 at 2:00 pm EST; Workplace Violence Prevention: The 7 New Truths offers employers, HR, Security and Airline industry professionals the opportunity to learn from and ask questions of two experts who have worked on the prevention of workplace violence for decades.

Individuals can register for this free webinar at: http://www.accuscreen.com/webinars

Hosted by AccuScreen.com, an industry pioneer, leader and expert in employment background screening, the webinar will feature CEO Kevin Connell and Barry Nixon, the executive director of the National Institute for Prevention of Workplace Violence, Inc., a company focused on assisting organizations to effectively implement programs to prevent workplace violence. Connell, also an expert on the subject of workplace violence and on background checks, promises a content-packed discussion.

The webinar will address the issue of workplace violence, the warning signs to look out for, and why no company no matter how large or small is immune. The experts will not only speak about prevention, but they will cover best practices should a crisis occur.

Adds CEO Connell of AccuScreen.com, “We will highlight the key areas of Workplace Violence Preparedness, with an emphasis placed on prevention, including what we see in today’s business climate that should cause concern, we will look back 25 years to some of the lessons learned from PSA Flight 1771 up to present day with the more recent Workplace Violence shooting at a chicken plant last month in Fresno.”

Areas that will be covered in the workplace violence webinar:

• Key warning signs to watch out for
• How workplace violence has changed over the past 25 years
• Resources and tools to minimize the risk of having an incident in the first place
• Today’s best practices

Connell and Nixon will reserve time on the webinar for questions. They encourage participants to bring questions that they may have about workplace violence.

About AccuScreen.com and Kevin Connell:
Since 1994, AccuScreen.com has been an industry pioneer and global leader in employment background screening, specializing in criminal background checks. Its reports are delivered globally to companies across the world. CEO Kevin Connell founded the company with a burning desire that companies hire the right people from the start, resulting in greater cost control and better safety in the workplace. Mr. Connell served as a Founding Director of the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS), and he is a frequent Radio and Television Guest, appearing on ABC and Fox News.

About Barry Nixon
W. Barry Nixon is the Executive Director of the National Institute for Prevention of Workplace Violence, Inc., a company focused on assisting organizations to effectively implement programs to prevent workplace violence. (http://www.WorkplaceViolence911.com ) Having spent over twenty years in Human Resources and Organization Development in Fortune 500 companies. Mr. Nixon is well grounded in the real issues companies face and develops practical solutions based on having been there. Mr. Nixon is a frequently requested speaker both in the US and abroad.

In the wake of the recent Poultry Plant shooting and tragic loss of life in Fresno, CA on November 6, 2012, many Human Resource Managers, Security professionals and Business leaders are taking a closer look at their policies and procedures that address workplace violence. A new webinar, “Workplace Violence Prevention: The 7 New Truths” offers employers, HR and Security professionals the opportunity to learn from and ask questions of two experts who have worked on the prevention of workplace violence for decades. The webinar will take place on Tuesday November 29 at 2:00 pm EASTERN (11:00 am Pacific).

Individuals can register for this free webinar at: http://www.accuscreen.com/webinars

Hosted by AccuScreen.com, an industry pioneer, leader and expert in employment background screening, the webinar will feature CEO Kevin Connell and Barry Nixon, the executive director of the National Institute for Prevention of Workplace Violence, Inc., a company focused on assisting organizations to effectively implement programs to prevent workplace violence. Connell, also an expert on the subject of workplace violence and on background checks, promises a content-packed discussion.

The webinar will address the issue of workplace violence, the warning signs to look out for, and why no company no matter how large or small is immune. Most importantly, Connell and Nixon will speak about ways to prevent workplace violence from happening in the first place.

Adds CEO Connell of AccuScreen.com, “We will cover three key areas, what we see in today’s business climate that should cause concern, look what just happened last week in the Fresno, CA Workplace Shooting (11/6/12), the key warning signs to watch out for, and third, we will provide the best solutions, resources and tools to minimize the risk of ever having an incident in the first place.”

Connell and Nixon will reserve time on the webinar for questions. They encourage participants to bring questions that they may have about workplace violence.

About AccuScreen.com and Kevin Connell:
Since 1994, AccuScreen.com (http://www.accuscreen.com ) has been an industry pioneer and global leader in employment background screening, specializing in criminal background checks. Its reports are delivered globally to companies across the world. CEO Kevin Connell founded the company with a burning desire that companies hire the right people from the start, resulting in greater cost control and better safety in the workplace. Mr. Connell served as a Founding Director of the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS), and he is a frequent Radio and Television Guest, appearing on ABC and Fox News.

About Barry Nixon
W. Barry Nixon is the Executive Director of the National Institute for Prevention of Workplace Violence, Inc., a company focused on assisting organizations to effectively implement programs to prevent workplace violence. (http://www.WorkplaceViolence911.com ) Having spent over twenty years in Human Resources and Organization Development in Fortune 500 companies. Mr. Nixon is well grounded in the real issues companies face and develops practical solutions based on having been there. Mr. Nixon is a frequently requested speaker both in the US and abroad.

Tampa, FL – In the current economic climate, business owners must be more vigilant than ever in their pre-employment screening practices. It’s an unfortunate truth that in such a competitive job market, the rate of resume fraud has climbed exponentially. With these concerns in mind, Kevin Connell, CEO and Founder of AccuScreen.com, a provider of employee screening services, will present a complimentary webinar titled, “Resume Fraud and Negligent Hiring Prevention Strategies with EEOC Compliance Best Practices” on August 9^th, 2012 at 11:00am EST. The presentation is pre-approved for credit by the Human Resources Certification Institute (HRCI) and will also touch on new enforcement guidelines put in place by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and what employers should do now to re-examine their new employee background check policies and practices.

“Every business, large or small, wants to hire the right people. Our goal is to ensure that recruiters, hiring managers and HR specialists have all the necessary tools and information to make informed decisions about their potential employees, said Kevin Connell, CEO and Founder of AccuScreen.com (http://www.AccuScreen.com).

In his nearly 20 years of experience in the employment background screening field Connell has seen major changes in the hiring process and has collected a wealth of best practices, tips and insider secrets to gathering pertinent information about potential new employees. His presentation will show attendees the pitfalls of failing to complete a thorough pre-employment screening through a reliable employment screening service, and how to verify the authenticity of collected information while disclosing the full process to every applicant, including what resources the company plans to check.

“The importance of thorough employment screening can’t be overstated. This presentation will guide you through the steps necessary to collect, assess and effectively utilize background check information to hire the employees that will add the most value to your organization,” Connell said.

In addition to discussing standard employment background and screening techniques, such as a thorough employment criminal background check, and how HR professionals can avoid the risks associated with negligent hiring, Connell will also shed light on the types of resume fraud most common in today’s business environment and discuss the shocking cost of Employee Theft.

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

About Kevin Connell:

Kevin G. Connell is a renowned professional background screening expert. He is recognized for his expertise on employment background screening, criminal record checks, workplace fraud, embezzlement, employee theft, resume fraud and negligent hiring in the workplace. Connell has spoken at numerous business, security & human resources conferences, including twice providing testimony before the Florida Supreme Court. He is widely quoted, has had several articles published in magazines, has been featured on television, including ABC-TV “Money Matters”, the Fox News Channel and has been interviewed on more than 137 live talk radio programs. Connell is a former founding Director of the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS).

About AccuScreen:

Since 1994, AccuScreen.com, (http://www.AccuScreen.com) has been an industry pioneer, leader and expert in employment background screening, specializing in criminal background checks. Its reports are delivered to companies across the world from instant to 72 hours.

Media Contact:

Sue Marriott
SueMarriott@AccuScreen.com
410 S. Ware Blvd. Suite 607
Tampa, FL 33619
1.800.689.2228 ext # 1100
http://www.AccuScreen.com

Tampa, FL – Today, leading employment screening service provider AccuScreen.com is implementing a streamlined user interface, designed to make the process of ordering new employee background checks more efficient. The new Global Profile Control (GPC) interface will allow AccuScreen clients access to new category selection options as well as enabling them to make changes to active employment screening service orders.

“With the new one-page global interface, clients will be able to have a more user-friendly experience. With added functionality, making it easier to add names to an order, and reducing duplicity,” explained Kevin Connell, CEO of AccuScreen.com (http://www.AccuScreen.com).

The GPC interface focusses on efficiency and ease of use. Documents uploaded to an applicant’s profile on the AccuScreen platform will be forwarded directly to AccuScreen for immediate processing, significantly reducing turnaround time. Other functionality improvements made possible by the new GPC interface include:

• International applicant address entry fields
• Free storage area under each applicant profile
• Country selection drop down list
• An order due date option
• Visible position field
• An additional name search service for the National Criminal search and OIG database

In addition to the improved GPC, the AccuScreen interface has now been optimized for multi-browser compatibility. Users of Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Google Chrome and Apple Safari will all experience the same exemplary functionality.

The AccuScreen platform is capable of handling a wide range of employment screening services from verifying social security numbers, to obtaining driving records for perspective employees. The AccuScreen platform is an all-inclusive suite of services that will ensure employers receive complete and accurate pre-employment screenings. The new GPC interface serves to bolster the high quality of service clients have come to expect from AccuScreen.com.

About AccuScreen:

Since 1994, AccuScreen.com, (http://www.AccuScreen.com) has been an industry pioneer, leader and expert in employment background screening, specializing in criminal background checks. Its reports are delivered to companies across the world with turnaround times from Instant to 72 hours.

Media Contact:

Sue Marriott
SueMarriott@AccuScreen.com
410 S. Ware Blvd. Suite 607
Tampa, FL 33619
1.800.689.2228 ext # 1100
http://www.AccuScreen.com

That is the understandable reaction of the majority of American business owners, managers, and HR professionals to the recent EEOC decision to ‘recommend’ that employers refrain from asking applicants about their criminal history on employment applications.  In other words, via the EEOC’s ‘recommendation,’ employers should not concern themselves with a potential employee’s criminal past – regardless of what that past entails.  But, how’s that supposed to work when the rest of the world continues to consider employers responsible for who they hire?

American businesses, some of which have been successfully sued for hiring individuals who have then committed criminal acts while under said business’ employ, have been left shaking their heads.  After all, the legal system has ruled time and time again that businesses themselves are liable for any harm that comes to company employees and/or those with whom employees interact.  To wit, if an employee harms someone while on the job (other employees, customers, clients, etc.), it is not just the employee, but the employer as well who will be held responsible for the harm caused by the employee.  The harmed party has to recover damages from someone, and employees rarely have the resources to compensate victims of crime…. but businesses do.

It’s Called Negligent Hiring, Folks
Most businesses are painfully aware of what can happen if someone under their employ commits a crime.  According to an article published in the Journal of Small Business Management entitled Negligent Hiring: Headaches for the Small Businessperson, such lawsuits have been successful against the employers of bartenders, janitors, drivers, police, hospital personnel, managers, and more.  The article states:
Often the basis of these lawsuits is a claim that in the hiring process the employer was negligent in some way in making employment decisions. The alleged negligence may arise from the employer’s failure to make sufficient inquiry when hiring an employee or additionally may arise if the employer retains an employee when he or she knew or should have known that the employee might have the propensity to injure another person.

The EEOC Catch-22
So, if American businesses are to understand the situation properly, hiring managers should not worry about legal liability if someone they hire commits a crime, right?  Unfortunately, the opposite is true.  Employers will continue to be held responsible for crimes committed by their employees, whether they follow the EEOC’s recommendation to the letter or not.  In fact, any employer who follows this sorely misplaced recommendation is likely to find they’ve landed in a heap of trouble.  Again according to the article in the Journal of Small Business:
The most common employer mistake that leads to liability for negligent hiring and retention is the failure to adequately investigate the background of an applicant when hiring certain types of employees. Most courts have held that background checks are not mandatory prior to an employment decision; however, if circumstances exist that should cause suspicion about an employee’s fitness, the employer has a duty to investigate that suspicion.

Instead, the EEOC have created a Catch-22 for employers.  Don’t ask about employment history and risk being sued.  Run background checks and risk getting sued.

Things that Make You Go Hmmm….
The legal position regarding negligent hiring isn’t new.

In May 2012, a female employee filed a negligent hiring lawsuit against a Roanoke, Virginia, employer after she was sexually assaulted in the employer’s parking lot by another employee who turned out to be a registered sex offender.  In 2008, an accident occurred because a truck driver, apparently coming off drugs, fell asleep at the wheel and lost control of his truck. The driver drove the truck off the road, killing another truck driver who was inspecting his brakes on the shoulder of the highway near Ashland, Oregon. A jury awarded damages of $5.2 million to the victim’s four adult children. The fault was assigned to the driver, Daniel Clarey, his employer Washington Transportation, and also to Heyl Logistics, the broker that provided the load.

But, if the legal system continues to lay the blame for the criminal acts of employees on employers, then shouldn’t the EEOC weigh that issue with their recommendations?

One would assume so.

The Errant EEOC
Since neither logic nor transparency (the EEOC issued their new guidelines without giving American businesses or the American public a chance to weigh in) played a role in the new EEOC guidelines, one has to wonder what they were thinking.  Even the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights isn’t all in on the new EEOC recommendations, citing the unenviable position of employers who have to balance the safety of other employees and customers with avoiding violating Title VII.

Interestingly, since, statistically, background checks seem to bolster hiring decisions regarding minorities, the EEOC appear to be hurting those they profess to protect.

All this aside, what gives the EEOC the right to issue such guidelines?

Nothing.

Although arguably well meaning, the EEOC have way overstepped their own boundaries on this one.  The EEOC have no authority to issue or interpret laws.  According to the EEOC’s own website, the agency have been entrusted with “…the authority to investigate charges of discrimination against employers who are covered by the law. Our role in an investigation is to fairly and accurately assess the allegations in the charge and then make a finding.”

To make matters worse, EEOC Commissioner Constance S. Barker stated:
… 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.

That’s a pretty strong statement by one of the EEOC’s own.

The EEOC vs. Kaplan Higher Education Corporation (“Kaplan”)
In December 2010, the EEOC set the stage for the recent recommendation by trying their edicts in federal court. The EEOC filed a lawsuit against Kaplan alleging that Kaplan’s use of credit checks as part of its background checks for job applicants and employees violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). Kaplan, however, hasn’t taken the motion lying down, and businesses across the nation are watching intently for the results of the case.

Kaplan, in response to the suit, has filed motions to force the EEOC to disclose its own employment practices regarding background checks, specifically regarding the EEOC’s own guidelines for job’s that have been designated as “public trust” or “national security” positions. Kaplan performs checks based on these designations and so does the EEOC, but the EEOC argues that Kaplan has no right to do so.

And, here’s the real zinger…

“The United States Supreme Court has recognized that background check investigations serve legitimate business purposes for employers.”

Who is the EEOC to argue with the highest court in the land?

The bottom line is that the EEOC have turned down a dangerous path. The agency was supposed to provide new guidance on credit reports on 4/25/2012, not background checks; it’s now apparent why they did not.

The EEOC, by shutting out American businesses and the American public, have sent a message that the EEOC, and the EEOC alone, is solely qualified to issue legal rulings on issues that the government itself has refrained from making.

The EEOC, by failing to gather evidence and statistics that pertain to the issue, have made a rash decision that will prove embarrassing at best and dangerous at worst.

The EEOC, by issuing guidelines at a time when they were obviously unprepared to do so, and were, in fact, more prepared for a retirement party, have caused more harm than not to the individuals it professes to protect.

The EEOC, by making a recommendation that places an undue burden on employers, have opened employers up to increased liability from both job applicants and potential negligent hiring lawsuits as well as muddy the waters for employers trying to abide by state hiring regulations.  The guidelines also strip employees and consumers of their rights to safe harbor.

Do as I Say, Not as I Do
Interestingly, the EEOC is attempting to hold Kaplan to task for engaging in the same employment and pre-employment practices they do. Given that the EEOC clearly believes that such background checks are valuable, it’s difficult to understand why they are electing to engage in a do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do way of implementing the nation’s trust.

The EEOC are hurting job creation when the country can least afford it.  The EEOC might believe they are helping minorities when, in fact, they are doing the exact opposite; not just for minorities but for ALL Americans.