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

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…

EEOC “Gives the Bird” to American Business Owners & Public

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

Employee Embezzlement: Whose Hand is in Your Cookie Jar?

The importance of employment screening firms and the services they provide, such as criminal background checks, has become a necessity in today’s workplace. Stories of employees involved in embezzlement, felonies and fraud are all over the daily news. These crimes are surprisingly common in the Unites States but the question remains, “why are employees thieving from the hands that feed them?” Although people have a hard time understanding the reasons why, greed is usually the primary these employees commit crimes.

Many employees struggling financially opt to steal from their place of employment instead of finding extra work while those who want an extravagant lifestyle are willing to do the same. Revenge or justice is another reason why some employees steal from their employer. Whatever the reason, the next potential employer of these employees should be warned before the hiring process even begins. A complete criminal background check by a reputable pre-employment screening firm is essential!

Your company is put in a position of higher risk if you do not follow through with pre-employment screening during the hiring process. In May 2011, office manager and bookkeeper for Rinos & Martin, LLP, Donna Joy Henderson, was found guilty of embezzling over $502,000. This employee was completely unsuspecting as she had worked for the company for more than 9 years and was in a position of trust. It took a new accountant to discover a check marked void but paid to Henderson. Which led to a further investigation uncovering $502,000 worth of voided checks written out to Henderson. This embezzling employee confessed and admitted to using the company’s money to pay personal expenses. A sentence for this type of crime could range from 24-30 months in prison. Once this employee serves her punishment she will once again be job searching. A smart company will use employment screening and criminal background checks to filter through potential employees who pose such risks. Screening firms have access to more thorough databases and are quick and accurate with their findings. Don’t consider hiring without using a trusted provider of background information or your workplace could have some shifty employees!

Top 10 Weirdest Complaints that Human Resources Departments Have Received from Their Employees

There is no wonder why people go to work everyday. Obviously, they get paid to go in and work but they also get to work with other interesting employees! This statement is not always universally agreed upon as the Human Resources Departments of most companies deal with the complaints of employees about their ‘disturbing’, not ‘interesting,’ co-workers.

Here we have included the top 10 weirdest complaints that Human Resource Managers have received as reported to CareerBuilder from a recent survey:

*1) If there are ever good cookies in the break room X employees eats them.

*2) Employees who are too polite often make the people around them angry.

*3) Another co-worker has been attempting to poison them.

*4) There are no places in the office to nap.

*5) There is one employee who always wears his slippers to work.

*6) A co-worker breathes to noisily.

*7) A co-worker once asked to be checked for ticks.

*8) Work needs to start later. 8 a.m. is way to early to be up and ready.

*9) One employee has been wearing bells on her shoes and it is not Christmas!

*10) The men’s bathroom is messy so a certain male co-worker keeps using the women’s bathroom!

While these complaints may seem a little over-the-top to you the reader, the employee who reported them felt compelled enough to do something about it. Some of these claims, however, should be looked into further. For example, it is a serious accusation to say that a co-worker is trying to poison you. Pre employment background screenings and/or criminal background checks are two ways to help companies really get to know their employees before hiring them. If you discover a potential employee who has been fired or jailed for threatening poisoning or a similar offense this is an immediate red flag for the hiring committee.

A medical doctor, Dr. Michael Swango, was recently convicted of killing a number of patients. The hospital staff itself attempted to do a criminal background check instead of hiring a professional company. Unfortunately, in the hospital’s background check they missed that Dr. Swango had spent 5 years in jail in a different state for poisoning his co-workers. You want your company to be well informed in order to avoid hiring this type of employee and thus should trust a professional screening company.

While the other complaints on the top-10 list are quite hilarious to actually imagine happening, the final complaint regarding the men and women’s washrooms could become a major problem. A dangerous situation could arise if the male employee is using the women’s restroom with bad intentions. It cannot only result in numerous and potentially destructive complaints for co-workers but could be a liability for the business. Unfortunately, many companies decide to decline pre-employment background screening and criminal background checks because of finances.

When you look at both of these examples, the importance of background checks before hiring a potential employee is enormous. Not only for the safety of your employees but also for the legal responsibility of your company!

Ask the Expert

I would like to know how other organizations conduct background checks. We use an agency and only check on Felonies for administrative staff. We rely on the applicant to disclose where they may have lived and then we search those counties or states as appropriate.  This process is dependent on the applicant disclosing all places lived which may not always happen. Is there a central database that could be searched? 

First, you state that you are only checking for Felonies. That’s a problem because there are many Misdemeanors that you are missing. As a general guideline, the only difference between a Felony and a Misdemeanor, is the amount of drugs, merchandise or money stolen, or what type of weapon was used in the criminal act. Misdemeanors can be violent, such as Simple Assault, Sex Offenses, Weapons Violations, Child Abuse or Domestic Violence. Or Misdemeanors can be classified as non-violent, such as charges of Fraud, Theft, Gambling, Drug Possession, DUI, and Prostitution. Additionally, many defendants are arrested on a Felony charge, but if they have a half-decent public defender or attorney, the Felony can be pleaded down to a Misdemeanor. Again, if you are searching for Felonies only, you are missing out on a lot of important criminal case information.

Secondly, you are relying on the applicant to be truthful as to where he lived or worked in the past, that would be sufficient, if all applicants told the truth, but we know that that is not the case, conservatively 1/3 of all job applications and resumes are falsified. I sense that you already know that, and you would like to verify that the applicant is being truthful on where he lived in the past, so you can search all applicable jurisdictions. My recommendation would be to do a social security number and previous address verification. This SSN screening inquiry serves as a good locator tool and is helpful in pointing out all jurisdictions to search for Criminal records.

Finally, you ask is there a central database that you can search. I would need to know a little bit more about the type of organization that you represent, but I will make the assumption that you are a private employer and you, like most companies, cannot access the central database of the FBI or National Criminal Information Center (NCIC), which are only available to law enforcement, or other industries regulated by the Federal Government, such as banks. The only database that you could search, is what is called a National Criminal File, which is a database complied by private companies into a private database, which is a good search to supplement your current criminal record search, but not as a stand alone search. The database is good when primarily used as a locator tool, similar to the SSN Inquiry, because it may point out to you other jurisdictions that the applicant has been arrested or convicted of a crime in the past. Whether you add this service or not is up to you, but at a bare minimum, you would want to do a Criminal Records check either on a county by county basis, or state by state, or a combination of the two, going back the past 7 years, and searching those jurisdictions that the applicant has lived or worked.

Kevin Connell
CEO of AccuScreen.com

The Business Guide to Background Checks

What is negligent hiring?

Negligent hiring is based on the principal that employers have an obligation to protect their employees and clients from injury caused by their own employees. Employers have an obligation to protect their employees from the “foreseeable” acts of a fellow employee. Negligent hiring happens when a company fails to check references or conduct a criminal background screening prior to hiring the employee. In other words, a company has the responsibility of Due Diligence.

The term “Due Diligence” first came into common use as a result of the US Securities Act of 1933. For business purposes, “Due Diligence” is the effort made by an ordinarily prudent or reasonable party to avoid harm to another party. Failure to make this effort may be considered negligence.

It’s important that employers perform their Due Diligence by conducting a background screening on every employee hired. This should be done regardless of the size the workforce or whether law requires it or not. Ideally, prior to hiring a prospective employee an employer needs to perform a pre-employment background screening that includes a criminal records check. The employee should not start work until the background information is verified and a criminal background check is performed.

According to Kevin G. Connell, Founder and CEO of Accu-Screen, Inc., the most reliable criminal records information is found at the local courthouse level. Unfortunately, the processing of criminal records at this level is slow and inaccurate at times. Getting criminal background information off the internet, in order to save money, is also counterproductive. There is no way to verify that the information received in that manner is accurate or even applicable. By hiring an employment background search firm such as Accu-Screen, Inc. Inc. you will receive

-Experience:  Since 1994, Accu-Screen, Inc. has been a pioneer in the pre-employment Screening field.

-Speed: With a guaranteed turnaround time of 24-72 hours, Accu-Screen, Inc. delivers background reports consistently faster than the competition.

-Technology: Accu-Screen, Inc.’s Online System delivers a 24/7 paperless system to order and retrieve background reports.

Examples of Negligent Hiring

It is very important to do a pre-employment background screen on service, contract and even sub-contract employees. Some overlooked service, contract and sub-contract positions include:

• Taxi drivers
• Plumbers
• Pest Control
• Maintenance employees

If an employee will be contact with a customer or public it is imperative that he or she go through the process of a professional employment and criminal background screen. A professional employment and criminal background screen can help you avoid the possible following scenarios:

• A taxicab company was held liable for negligence in hiring a criminally violent driver who raped and robbed a woman in the presence of her two young children.

• A taxicab company was liable for a person beaten by a taxicab driver after paying his fare and leaving the cab.

• The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York awarded $1.5 million to a woman and her son who suffered physical and psychological injuries following a sexual assault on the woman by the maintenance man employed at the defendant’s apartment complex.

• An employer was held liable for the negligent hiring and retention of a sexually aggressive service employee with a criminal record who subsequently raped a female client.

You hear about these incidents all the time. You also wonder how and why these people ever got hired and how it could have been avoided. In many of the incidents, the employee had a history of violent or criminal behavior that would have been discovered through a pre-employee background screen by a professional screening firm. These situations can be avoided at your company when employers are pro-active in the hiring of its employees.

It is important to remember that there are positions that require employment background screening regardless of whether the position is a regular or contract position. For example:

• Elder care attendant
• Daycare provider
• Health care worker

On a side note, elder abuse lawsuits are on the rise. Cases involving long-term care facilities are based on negligence, willful misconduct or fraud by an elderly care attendant. Examples of abuse by health care employees:

• Deprivation of food or water
• Failure to prevent malnutrition
• Failure to assist in personal hygiene
• Unauthorized use of physical or chemical restraints
• Lack of pain medication, under medication or overmedication

Many of the cases stem from poor hiring practices throughout the long-term care facilities. This occurs when service employees are hired without a careful screening of their background and skills for this type of position. It can also occur when employees are promoted without verification of required credentials and training. These employees go onto to supervise and teach other employees poor and possibly dangerous working habits. The similar situation occurs for daycare and healthcare workers.

Consequences of negligent hiring

Most businesses have a hiring process that is followed for every job applicant. Typically the recruitment process entails the following steps:

• Application or resume′ submitted by applicant
• Phone screening of applicant
• Candidate is interviewed
• Management meets to make hiring decision
• References may be checked by Human Resources
• Job offer is made

This procedure would be fine if a third party such as an employment-screening firm checked the references. Additionally, a candidate should pass a criminal records screen. When a thorough reference and criminal screening is not made, or handled poorly, it can literally come back to haunt employers. The recruiting process should be handled like any other business deal. Hiring a candidate based on information on a resume’ and a good personality fit, should not be what seals the deal. Every bit of allowable and available information should be gathered before a job offer is made.

The fact is that many human resources departments do not have the time, resources or experience to do a complete employee background screen. For most employers, finding the most accurate and up to date criminal records information is very time consuming and confusing. Furthermore, there are privacy laws protecting job applicants that must be followed in order to avoid a discrimination lawsuit.

Some of the consequences of negligent hiring can result in:

• Lawsuits from injured or victimized employees or clients
• Wrongful termination lawsuits
• Loss of profits or sales
• Increased insurance costs
• Diminished business reputation

Lawsuits from injured or victimized employees or clients

Lawsuits can come from a variety of complaints from employees or clients. The most serious complaints include violence and great financial loss. This can involve an employee who caused another person physical or emotional damage. Although cases of fatalities in the workplace are not commonplace, the results of these incidents are devastating to the victims and to a business.

Wrongful termination lawsuits

A ploy used by unethical employees is the ‘wrongful termination” lawsuit.
This happens when an unproductive or troublesome employee is fired. In retaliation, he or she will file a lawsuit against the employer. The goal is usually to settle fast to avoid a hearing in court to settle the matter. These opportunistic employees usually have cases without merit. Yet, they know that some companies will just settle to avoid the expense of dragging on a lawsuit. Through careful screening of references, this type of employee can be avoided. It is not enough for employers to be aware of what is going on with their employees. They need to be aware of what their prospective employees have been up to in the past.

Loss of profits or sales

Hiring an inept employee can quite literally cost a company. It is important to have a candidate’s skills educational background to make sure they are fit to perform the job hired to do. It is equally important to do a criminal background screen to make sure the employee is an honest and ethical person. Be assured of these two aspects before making a hiring decision can save money and frustration in the future. Avoid hiring “poor functioning” employees that will drive you to the poor house!

Increased insurance costs

Increased insurance rates result from workers compensation claims. An employment records report will help identify and avoid “habitual” workers compensation claimants.

Diminished business reputation

Your employees are your company. Make sure you hire applicants who will make the best impression in every possible way. No one wants to conduct business with employees who are dishonest or violent in any manner. By obtaining a criminal background screening you will be able to decrease the likelihood of hiring an employee that will cause damage to your business or customers.

When employers fail to be pro-active in all area of their business, things can and will fall between the cracks. In some instances, these slips can be very expensive.

The expense of negligent hiring

A smart business owner will purchase different forms of insurance for the company and employees. Yet, sometimes that same businesses owner will hire people without insuring the business from perpetrators.

An unfortunate example is the recent story relayed of the story of an accountant who stole from his employers. The accountant was accused of stealing more than $375,000 from one of his clients rather than use the money to pay taxes to the Internal Revenue Service. According to court documents made available, the accountant was supposed to take care of payroll taxes for his employee and roughly ten of his employer’s staff at his dental office. The court documents say the accountant would prepare one check for each employee’s adjusted net income and one check for taxes. The documents also state that he asked, however, that the tax checks be made payable to his business, with the understanding he would send the money along to the IRS.

The dentist’s wife, who also works at the dental office received a letter from the IRS and soon found out no tax returns had been prepared or filed in her husband’s name in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006. The total amount, more than $375,000, should have been sent to the IRS, but wasn’t. The court records indicate that a review of bank records show the accountant made numerous withdrawals from his business account for mortgage payments, concert and airline tickets and other personal uses.

The accountant has a prior criminal record. According to court records, in 1997 he pleaded guilty to stealing more than $250,000 from an 88-year-old legally blind woman for whom he was an accountant. He was only sentenced to four years of probation in that case.

Ironically enough an employment background screen that costs about $150 would have revealed the accountant’s prior criminal conviction. A smart business owner knows that the cost of something needs to be weighed against the end result. In this case the small cost of the background screen would have saved the dentist $375,000.

Then there are the situations where the actual figure can’t be calculated but it can equally cause a business financial loss. For example, if a company hires an employee that detracts sales from the company due to lack of skills, the actual loss is unknown but still occurs. Or there is the scenario where an employee is a poor performer due to personal issues, such as drug or alcohol abuse. This type of employee can literally drain the company of resources directly through theft or indirectly by lowering the morale of the company.

How to avoid negligent hiring

Sadly it has now become commonplace for some companies to assume they will eventually get sued by employees for one reason for another. It is true that a company or business owner can’t have control of all of the actions of its employees. Yet, steps can be and should be taken to prevent hiring risky employees. The goal of the employer should always be to minimize any potential harm to company assets. This, of course, includes employees as well as the finances of a business.

One of the best ways a company can avoid lawsuits from an applicant is by hiring a background search firm such as Accu-Screen, Inc. Inc. When you hire a reputable firm such as Accu-Screen, Inc. Inc., you also help avoid arbitrary hiring that may lead to a discrimination lawsuit.

Employers can be held liable for facts that are known or “should have been known” regarding an employee’s character or job-related experience. If you are aware, or have reason to believe your employee is unfit for duty, you can be held liable for negligent hiring. By retaining a qualified employment background screening company, you can avoid jeopardizing yourself and your business from this dangerous liability.

How Do I Choose An Expert Employee Screening Firm?

A full service firm such as Accu-Screen, Inc. Inc. will provide the most accurate and complete information on:

• Criminal Records
• Driving Records
• Drug Testing
• Social Security Number
• Employment
• Education
• Worker’s Compensation
• Licenses & Credentials
• Credit Profile

Criminal records

Accu-Screen, Inc. Inc. obtains criminal records by County and State (where available) in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Our analysis reveals that over 3% of the individuals we check have a felony record and over 7% have a misdemeanor. With our criminal record search, you receive a criminal history that is clear and easy to read, enabling you to make the right hiring decision.

Driving records

Accu-Screen, Inc. obtains Motor Vehicle Reports (MVRs) from the appropriate Department of Motor Vehicles to verify the applicant’s identity, histories of accidents, speeding tickets, reckless driving, suspended licenses, DUIs and DWIs. It is important to note that MVRs are not public records.

Drug Testing

Accu-Screen, Inc. is affiliated with a network of national laboratories that provide testing for legal and illegal drug usage. All testing is conducted through NIDA, DOT and HRS certified facilities and meets current Federal and State Drug-Free Workplace requirements. Additionally, we conduct previous employment drug test verifications as required by the FAA and the Department of Transportation.

Social Security Number

Accu-Screen, Inc. Inc. confirms the identity and validity of the number and its issuance by the Social Security Administration.

Employment

Our analysis tells us that over 43% of the applications that we process contain at least one falsification by the applicant. We verify the accuracy of employment history with emphasis placed on past job performance, employment periods, positions held, salary, rehire eligibility and reasons for leaving.

Education

The FBI estimates that over 500,000 people nationwide claim college degrees they never earned. We verify the applicant’s educational qualifications as well as the accreditation of the College or University awarding the degree.

Worker’s Compensation

Workers compensation information is released in compliance with the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act. It provides a history of the individual’s work-related injuries that includes dates of accidents, nature of injuries and if the claim was upheld or denied by the state authority.

Licenses & Credentials

Accu-Screen, Inc. Inc verifies all professional licenses and claims of credentials. This ensures that your prospective employee may legally perform the work required for the position.

Credit Profile

In accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Accu-Screen, Inc. Inc. can provide a report indicating the applicant’s existing debt, payment history, judgments, liens, collections and/or bankruptcies.

There are many employee background-screening firms out there. Make sure to contact the firm’s customer service to get information on:

• Years of experience
• Fee for services
• Turnaround time
• Areas of expertise

Negligent hiring can be an expensive and frustrating experience. Fortunately, there are many measures employers and business owners can take to protect their business and employees. Having a pro-active attitude and having the right information during the recruitment of a new employee can make the difference between hiring a “star employee” or the “employee from hell”.

For more information on Accu-Screen, Inc. Inc. and how we can help you hire qualified and top-notch applicants visit www.accuscreen.com.

Webinar: Friday August 13, 2010 – Workplace Violence in the 21st Century

Webinar: Workplace Violence in the 21st Century – 2:00 PM Eastern 11:00 Pacific

Tampa, Fl., August 11, 2010—In the wake of the beer distributorship shooting and tragic loss of life in Manchester, CT on August 3rd, many Human Resource professionals and business leaders are taking a fresh look at their policies and procedures that address workplace violence. A new webinar, “Workplace Violence in the 21st Century: Top 10 Lessons Learned,” offers employers and HR professionals an 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 Friday, August 13, from 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. EDT.

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

Hosted by AccuScreen Inc., an industry pioneer, leader and expert in employment background screening, the webinar will feature founder and CEO Kevin Connell interviewing 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, “we will address not only why workplace violence has been on the rise, but also dispel the different myths that are out there such as the ‘disgruntled worker just snapped.’”

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 Accu-Screen Inc.
Since 1994, Accu-Screen, Inc. has been an industry pioneer, leader and expert in employment background screening, tenant screening, nanny screening and date screening, specializing in criminal background checks. Its reports are delivered to companies across the world with turnaround times from Instant to no more than 72 hours. CEO Kevin G. 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. Kevin also serves as a national speaker and expert in negligent hiring, resume fraud, employee theft, and embezzlement. Accu-Screen, Inc. is a C.A.U.S.E. Certified Background Screening Company.

About Kevin Connell
Kevin Connell has over 15 years experience as CEO & Founder of AccuScreen.com, a Global Background Screening Company, specializing in Criminal Background Checks. Mr. Connell was one of the founding Directors of the National Association of Background Screeners (www.napbs.com); he is an internationally-known expert on Background Checks, Occupational Fraud and Embezzlement, as well as a speaker, published author who has appeared on over 73 Television and Radio shows including Fox News and ABC’s Money Matters.

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. 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 internationally on the subject of Workplace Violence and Background Screening.

Human Resource Managers Must Be Vigilant When Doing Seasonal Hiring: “Resume Lies and Embezzlement are on the Rise,” says Accu-Screen

Major retailers and other corporations are gearing up for the all-important holiday shopping season. Amid growing worries about stagnant holiday sales and signs of a recession, companies are still hiring seasonal employees. In their hurry to hire temporary workers, however, many companies run an increased risk of employee fraud, embezzlement and other crimes.

Accu-Screen, a leader in employment background screening, has found that employee theft and fraud tend to increase in a rocky economy. Accu-screen frequently conducts criminal and sexual offender background checks for retail chains and malls that are hiring seasonal employees.

“In uncertain economic times, more employees are giving themselves a ‘five-finger bonus,’” says Kevin Connell, chief executive officer and founder of Accu-Screen. “I’ve seen numerous recent cases of people who’ve decided to get a salary increase by stealing from their employers.”

Connell advises hiring managers and others to be on their guard when evaluating prospective employees. They should avoid giving in to the temptation to hire in haste, since they’re likely to repent at leisure, Connell says.

Some high-profile cases of seasonal crimes include:

* A New Jersey con man stole $200,000 from eight companies in four states. He repeatedly got hired as a store manager, worked for a few days or weeks, then disappeared with the cash receipts.

* Three Nordstrom’s security employees and a “secret shopper” were arrested for taking part in a retail theft ring that stole store merchandise valued at $62,000.

* An actor who worked as a mall Santa was arrested by Interpol for producing child pornography and abusing young boys.

Many of these employees looked good on paper, but were hiding a criminal record, false identity or a checkered employment history. Connell has noticed an upswing in people who are lying on their resumes this year. He saw the same pattern during the economic downturns in the late 1990s and after September 11th, 2001.

“It’s frightening how much damage a bad or dishonest employee can do in their first thirty days on the job,” Connell says. He recommends that employers protect themselves by doing background screenings of prospective and current employees.

Insiders Secrets of Criminal Background Checks – Webinar

I’m going to speak for a few minutes on criminal background checks and then I’m going to open it up to a “Q and A” so we will save any questions you have in mind for the end.  Let me start by giving a little background on myself and on my company.  I am Kevin Connell and my company is AccuScreen.  I started AccuScreen back in 1994 – exactly fifteen years ago – almost to the day.  We incorporated in the state of Florida in May of 1994.  Prior to that I worked at Proctor and Gamble for about seven or eight years.  One tip that I give to people as I’m speaking is make sure that whoever you are speaking to has some sort of background on the topic you are looking to learn more about.  I see plenty of people out there that give advice and they really have no reason to be giving advice because they don’t know anything about the topics. 

 In terms of specifically background checks, since I started the company in ’94 many things have changed in terms of the medium that we use to get information back, but not a whole lot has changed in terms of the actual searches.   The internet has been around since the 1960′s and the 1970′s, but the internet back in ’94 was not in the user-friendly format that it is today.  Information has always been out there, we are just able to get the information quicker to you and in a more user-friendly format. 

 But in terms of the criminal records themselves, that really hasn’t changed a whole lot.  The business that I am in is basically fraud prevention and making sure that in terms of – if you are hiring somebody – that you are hiring an asset – somebody that is going to benefit your company, benefit your organization – to do the job at hand.  With the internet not only can you get information quickly, but there’s the good side of the internet, and then the negative side of the internet.  And anybody who has followed me, what I have talked about a lot lately are some of these scams that have taken place.  And some of these are quite amusing stories.  One on the social media front was on Fox a few weeks back talking about what employers and what employees need to know about social media – such as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter – very, very powerful technologies, but with that technology there is a negative side to it. 

 Anybody that has a cell phone, for instance – and this happened a few months ago in Ohio – we had an individual who – it was his birthday – and he thought it would be a good idea to film himself taking a bath in the bathtub of this restaurant.  And before you know it, it was loaded up on YouTube.  And this is what I’m talking about when I talk about preventing hiring the employee from hell.   This certainly fit the description well.  He not only had another person in the restaurant filming him while he was in his birthday suit – instantly when it was uploaded to YouTube, the Health Department of Ohio was called in, the restaurant was closed down – just because somebody thought it was going to be a pretty funny thing to do.  The sad thing is he lost his job as well as the managers and the other people that were there.  Plus whoever was working that shift or that day, they were not going to be making any money because the restaurant was closed down.  The business was affected, and personally this particular restaurant I would never go into again.  I don’t care how efficient you are at cleaning and sanitizing the place, that’s just not the publicity that an organization needs.   

 In the fifteen years of doing background checks and helping companies prevent fraud, prevent embezzlement; prevent hiring the employee from hell, usually when the economy faces tough times fraud increases.  You’ve seen that in the papers and you’ve seen that in the news for the past several months.  What was Madoff doing for the past twenty years?  A lot of people thought that they were investing their money well, but in terms of what Madoff was selling, he was selling basically statements.  He had a convoluted, very organized ponzi scheme going on.  And he was selling statements.  He was selling people what they thought they were going to be retiring on.  And that’s just one example and you see many of these “Madoff’s” coming out of the woodwork.  That’s usually what happens when the economy is challenged.  Usually people are pulling out money.  They hear about a Madoff, a ponzi scheme, and then they question whether their own money is safe.   Then you see all of these other folks in terms of being convicted of fraud.  

 Another case I’ve talked about lately – and anybody who has stayed in a hotel can appreciate this, especially if you’ve been a business traveler, or even if you’ve gone with family and friends to hotels.   There is a scam going around the entire United States, and basically the scam is that somebody will be calling the front desk of a hotel (in one case they actually bypassed the hotel and went to an individuals’ guest room)  and they are posing as a security company.  And when I tell you this story you’re going to say “No way, Kevin.  There is no way that this possibly could happen.”  But you do your own search on this and I’d be happy to send you some of the stories.  But this actually happened out in Nebraska.  Somebody had called the front desk, and the front desk person answered the phone and a person in a deep voice identified themselves as belonging to the security corporation and needed them to pull the fire alarm in the hotel.  And this is a well known chain.  This isn’t just some hotel that you’ve never heard about off the side of the road.  But it could happen to any hotel.  But in this case they asked them to pull the fire alarm -which this person without any verification of who they were speaking to immediately pulled the fire alarm.  So the fire alarm goes off in the hotel and naturally causes an uproar with all of the guests.  And then the front desk person asks the person who was scamming the hotel “How do I get the alarm off?”  The scammer then said the only way to stop the fire alarm was to take the fire extinguisher like a hammer and brake off one of the sprinkler heads in the front lobby, which was what this person went to do.  He hit the sprinkler head and then the problem you have now is that the front lobby is raining water from the sprinkler system.   The third and final thing – there was a truck driver who was operating a rig and apparently he had just checked in.  He solicited any assistance that he could provide.  And the person who was on the phone said that if the sprinkler head could not do the trick to shut the fire alarm off, the only last resort was to break the front glass windows of the front lobby.  This person who was driving his rig – if you can picture this happening – drove his rig in through the front door of this hotel and smashed the entire lobby doors.  So you can just picture the enormous problem and the enormous amount of damage that was done to this hotel because the person who was hired by somebody obviously was not the best person to be operating in such a position of responsibility as the front desk.  That is just one scam and it’s going out from Nebraska.  It happened in Orlando – I’ll save that story for another time.  But what actually happened in Orlando was that the caller actually reached somebody’s guest room.  Again, I’ll save that for another time, but they were being told to do the same sort of scam, same sort of prevention except for it was a gas leak in the person’s room. 

 Let’s dive into the thing that we want to cover today and that’s criminal record checks.  First and foremost, before I tell anybody who is either currently doing criminal checks or who has not done criminal checks, the first and foremost thing that you must do before you even search any jurisdiction, is you must confirm the identity of the person that you are looking to do a search on.  I see many people make a mistake, they run criminal searches, but they’re doing an incomplete search and it’s simply “Garbage in, garbage out”.  If you have the person’s wrong name or their identifiers – and by identifiers I mean date of birth, social security number, a person’s drivers’ license number – those would be identifiers.  Because most of the people that are doing criminal checks are not doing a fingerprint search.  A fingerprint search is done and it’s submitted through – and unless you are in an industry that has a law mandating your permission to access the FBI database, you are doing a name search on the individual.  So that is why I am saying that it is so important that when you do a search that you do a search under the person’s name or former names.   And one of the tricks there is to make sure that you have an excellent applicant release.  And the applicant release shouldn’t be one of these forms that you pick up at the local office supply store, like an Office Depot.  You want to make sure that you have your own customized application.  Because the application to you, the person that is hiring, is your tool to screen out the individuals that you do not want working for your organization. 

 We’re not looking to screen people in.  I see many people make the mistakes of taking an application, interviewing the person, going by their gut instinct – if they say or do something within the first 30 to 40 seconds of the interview, I see many people that are interviewing people actually come to their own conclusion, and then they are just looking for ways to screen that person in, ways to justify their hiring decision.  My argument is flip it around.  What you should be doing is looking for reasons to disqualify the person that you are hiring.  Don’t fall to the common hiring mistake of as soon as you see the person and you start to get a good feel is that you just start giving easy questions and not penetrating into areas that you are uncomfortable with.  As human beings we naturally want to think of the good in people.  We want to think that everything that they say is true when in fact – and this is just through our own statistics – over 40% of the applicants that we screen have some form of discrepancy.  Now that could be dates of employment off, that could be somebody who is claiming to have a license to operate medicine or law when they do not in fact have a license or the license is suspended.  If you’ve got somebody that is driving on company time you obviously want to make sure that you are verifying that they do have the legal license to drive – whether that’s an outside salesperson, a delivery person, or the person that’s going down the street to pick up lunch for the office. 

 So in terms of identity, you need a good release.  One of the best tools you can use is a social security number verification to verify whether that social security number matches the person that you are looking to hire.  There is also a social security number validation and the difference between that is a validation is just validating that that number has been issued, it’s a legal number, and it doesn’t belong to a dead person.  So the social security number validation is different from the verification.  The verification will verify whether there’s a name match and in many cases it will show where that person has lived prior.  Most people move around in their lives.  They don’t usually stay in the same state and the same jurisdiction.  So if you’re only searching in the particular state, county, or local jurisdiction, you may be missing something.  And I see many companies that are looking to do a quick screen and get the information back.  But they don’t take the time to actually verify the individual’s identity.

 Another good way to verify somebody’s identity is through the driver’s record, or some places call it the MVR – the motor vehicle record check on an individual.   There are two reasons why you would want to run a driving record on somebody.  One is if they are driving on company time you want to make sure that you are hiring somebody that obeys the traffic rules and regulations that are out there.  You should have a good policy on what will preclude somebody.  You might have a one up signature off on somebody that you get certain information back on.  With the driving record and identity, usually the person has to have (unless the live right down the street from you or they are taking public transportation) a reliable form of transportation and they’re going to have to be driving to and fro to work.  So another reason why, even though they might not have in their job description driving duties, when you look at a driving record it will confirm their identity.  When you’re running a criminal check one of the identifiers that we’re looking for is their name.  And by name I mean their full name, their middle initial or middle name, any names that they went by before.  You can’t ask them what their maiden name was, but you can ask any other names that you have gone by.  

 Another myth in terms of  doing background checks is a lot of people get uneasy about asking somebody’s date of birth.  When the EEOC has for years permitted the use of  the date of birth for background screening purposes.   There is also flow analysis depending on where the individual is in the hiring process.  By flow information I mean information that you need for I-9, the person’s race and gender.  These are all identifiers when you get a criminal record back to confirm that this individual belongs to you or not.  Now take a name like Smith, Jones, Gonzalez – all of those are very, very common names, and if I had you go into any court house, large or small, you are going to have multiple people with that same name.  I mean, John Smith – if you don’t have a date of birth, if you don’t have a middle initial, all you are going to get back are positive, possible records.  Now these positive, possible records are not what you want.  You want to know whether this belongs to the person that you are looking to hire or not.  You want a yes or no answer.  You want as much as possible that it definitely belongs to my person or it definitely does not. 

 There are protections for the applicant, and again that gets back to having a good release.  And by a good release, I’m talking about you letting them know exactly what the applicant is permitting you to do in terms of the background check.  So I’ll go over just some highlights of different releases.  But on our release that we give to our clients it clearly shows applicant authorization and consent for release of information.  If you’re using one of these generic employment applications there is a spot that says at the end that the information that you give on the application is accurate and true.  But with the Fair Credit Reporting Act you want to have a distinct, separate release.  And this is what I am talking about.  And I’ll be sending this release form out to everybody who has registered for the call.

 Here are just some highlights.  In connection with my application for employment or continued employment, I understand that a consumer report will be ordered that may include information as to my character, general reputation, personal characteristics, etc., etc.  I understand that in compliance with applicable law and as directed by company policy – again that’s why you want to have some sort of company policy.  I have worked with Fortune 100 companies that you would think that they had some sort of policy when they got criminal record in background reports back.  In one particular example they were doing background checks for years and they had multiple offices not only throughout the United States, but they were multi-national.  They had offices abroad.  So having a consistent policy is extremely important.  And one key thing on an applicant release is – not only do you want to do a check – and in some industries it’s mandated that you do this – not only doing a pre-employment check, but continued employment or post-employment checks.  In some cases we have clients that do this annually or they do it once every six months.  We call it infinity screening.  Infinity screening means that when we do checks for you, not only do we do pre-employment but we continually monitor that individual and that release does include that in there.  So you want to make sure that it says not only for pre-employment but for continued employment. 

 And there are some specific states – particularly Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, New York, Maine, Washington, New Jersey, and California – you do need to have some language on your release that basically says that you’re an applicant that resides in those states if you want a free copy of the background report that you give them an “opt in” so they can check off that yes, please send me a copy of the report.  My experience is that most people do not check off that box, but again it’s an “opt in”.  They will not automatically get it.  California actually started that procedure.  It caused a lot of headaches and red tape in California and they have since amended it.  And then other states like Oklahoma and Minnesota and then shortly after that New York, Massachusetts, and the other couple of states instituted it as well.   But again it’s an “opt in”.  They must opt in if they want to get a copy of the report. 

 And then there’s some other language that you want to have in there – the person’s name, former name and their other names.  You want them to sign off on this form obviously.  And actually that signature can prove helpful if there is a criminal record and we go to the point of actually retrieving criminal records where the person may have signed off on a diversion program, or signed off on a probation, or if they entered prison.  Their signature should be there.  Date of birth is on our form, and not only current address but also former addresses, and please listing all other cities and states that they have resided in for the past seven years. 

 Most of the background checks that are done are a seven year window.  And the seven years came from the Fair Credit Reporting Act.  The FTC basically used that as a guideline.  The Fair Credit Reporting Act was initially a law that regulated banks and institutions in lending.  And they just took their umbrella powers that the FTC, the Federal Trade Commission, and made it broadly affecting people that are looking for credit for employment purposes.  Because that’s basically what you are doing, you are verifying information for employment purposes.  You’re not looking to grant a loan, although the loan that you are involved in is human capital and in many cases much more involved in its financial commitment.  Let me just look at the average starting pay of the person that works hourly for you.  You’re easily committing $20,000 in salary not including, benefits, your training time, and your interviewing time.  When it comes down to it it’s easily a $25,000 investment on any employee that you bring aboard. 

 In terms of criminal records there are searches that you can do and there are searches that you cannot do.  So for most of us on this call you can’t do a national or nation-wide search.  And even if you could – say that there was a law mandated for your industry that you could now do FBI checks.  There is a big myth out there – and I was up in the Cleveland, Ohio area last week talking to a few people about this – the common myth is that there is an FBI record on everybody since we were born to present day.  And that is just not the case.  The FBI is mainly an arrest database.  It is mainly felony information.  And there’s an important take away on felony information.  The only difference in many cases between a felony and a misdemeanor is the amount of drugs or goods that were involved or merchandise involved in a theft or a drug bust, whether a fire arm was used or not and plus we have different states that have different classifications.  So the other big take away that I want you to look at is on your employment application.  If you still have the question that asks, “Have you ever been convicted of a felony?” or “Have you ever been convicted of a felony within the last seven years?”   I’m sorry to report that that record is extremely outdated.  The better way to ask that question is “Have you ever been convicted of a crime?” versus getting into felonies and misdemeanors.  Because I can give you a dozen different serious misdemeanors depending on the policy and depending on the position that you are hiring for that it would cause you great hesitation to hire somebody with a serious misdemeanor.  And I do realize that there are different states and different laws but we’re not going to get into the legal aspects of this.  But the thing that I want you to take away is if you are using that question you need to know that it is an outdated question.  It was an outdated question fifteen years ago.  Any time that I saw somebody that had said “Have you ever been conviction of a felony?” – and I know it’s out there because I meet with clients, I meet with people that I’m speaking before and they come up to me and they show me their application.   And the very first thing that I do when I see that is give them some alternatives.  So an alternative would be “Have you ever been convicted of a crime, pleaded guilty or no contest to a criminal charge, or entered into an agreement setting forth the conditions for the eventual dismissal of a criminal case?”  And then you give them an opportunity to answer “yes” or “no”, and if yes, please specify what the offence was, where and when it occurred, and please use a separate sheet if necessary.  And then having this verbiage also in there – Criminal convictions are not an absolute bar to an employment and will only be considered in relation to job requirements.  And I’ll be sending this along with two other ways to ask that question. 

 The first one I just gave you pretty much covers and addresses any type of gray area.  When an applicant is lying they are rationalizing to you why they are lying.  A person is usually lying for one of two reasons.   They are lying because they want you to believe something that is false about them.  They may want you to believe that they are more qualified for the position than they actually are.  That is one form of lying.  The other form of lying is that they are looking to cover up something that they don’t want you to know about them, that they don’t want to reveal to you in the job interview or during employment.  So those are basically the two categories of lying.  Because I’ve seen many, many cases where somebody puts down on their form – they answer the question and say “well, this was pleaded out”.   The FDIC says if you’ve plead out a case, that is classified as a “yes”.  You’ve plead out to a case.  By the FDIC I mean the Federal Depositors Insurance Corporation.  The FTC – Federal Trade Commission does not (and you can look through all of their verbiage in the Fair Credit Reporting Act) specifically define what a criminal conviction is.  So having it in your policy is of the utmost importance.  Another simpler way to ask that question: “Have you ever been convicted of a crime or been placed on probation?”   There’s a big difference between probation and parole.  Probation could be a felony; it’s normally a misdemeanor.  Probation is usually an extended period of time.  There may be no jail time and they’re on probation for three years.  They have to stay out of trouble for that period of time.  If they violate their rules of probation, and one of the rules could be that they didn’t check in with their PO – their probation officer.  That could be a violation of probation.  Another violation of probation could be that they cause a crime, it might not be the same crime but if they’ve violated a crime they could be convicted of violating their probation.  Parole in most cases is on a felony.  Somebody who has been convicted of a very serious crime usually has been sent to the big house, the state prison and they’re on parole.  So if they’re on parole there is a difference.  So you should understand the difference between what probation is and what parole is.  Big, big difference and again, one has to do more or less with misdemeanors and the other has to do with felonies.  

 In terms of the criminal records out there, you can’t access the National Criminal Information Center.  You can’t access the FBI database.  There is, and we do offer, a national criminal file.  I see many people play up the national criminal file making it synonymous with like an FBI check which it is not.  It is a private database that has been compiled in terms of our national criminal database.  There are different sources of information that we compile from states that will provide the information on all of their criminal records.  It’s entered into a large database plus any previous records that we have come across – they’re called “priors” – previous records that we have known hits on go into the information in this database.  If you are in such states as Florida or Texas, the national criminal file is extremely good.  In Ohio the national criminal database is extremely good for a portion of the state.  But when you’re talking about a state like Massachusetts, the information that’s in the national criminal file is mainly Department of Corrections information.  The national criminal file does have all sexual predator information in it from all 50 states.  But if you’re looking for county criminal checks, or in Massachusetts they call it CORI (Criminal Offender Record Information), which is their state database.  The information is not in there.  You should be aware of that when you are running a criminal check.  So there is a national criminal database out there.  It is a good tool to use to create a wider net to improve the current criminal background check process that is in place for you.  Some of you may be just doing county checks.  Some of you may be doing state checks.  There are pluses and minuses of both of those.  If you were able to do both that would be great.  Particularly in Massachusetts I would say that between doing a county check and a CORI check you would be better off with a county check.  Just because Massachusetts only retains certain information in CORI only for a certain amount of time.   It’s usually for five years, so if a person’s been convicted of a felony for the past five years, not seven years or longer, it would be in CORI, but if somebody had a misdemeanor the information could be out of there as soon as in two years.  So certain states have better databases and also certain states are quicker at getting information back to you.  In Florida and Texas you can get the information back in some cases instantly, or same day or next day.  In Pennsylvania or in Massachusetts your talking anywhere from three to five days to Massachusetts where the average (and their average really hasn’t changed in the past fifteen years) it’s usually up to a month before you get information back. 

 So you’ve got a county check, you’ve got a state check, and then the final area would be federal searches, a federal district court search, and there’s ninety-four of them throughout the U.S.   The website that you could go to to visit for federal criminal databases is Pacer.  I’m not sure if it’s pacer.com, or pacer.org, or pacer.gov, but if you use your favorite search engine you can find Pacer.  The pluses of Pacer are that you can easily get set up with them and easily search information.  The problem with Pacer is identifiers.  Pacer does not as a general rule give you identifiers so you’re going to be getting name matches on an individual.   When we’re doing federal searches, Pacer is one source that we use.  Other sources are the actual researcher going in and out of a federal district court, and, in many cases, if there’s a possible record on somebody who has a common name we’re actually having to call up and speak to either the district attorney who is involved in the case, or the attorney general’s office.  In different parts of the country that information can be more challenging than others. 

 Again, you are making a decision on an applicant and if you don’t have certainty involved with your decisions, then somebody’s going to have to do the leg work to make sure that that crime either belongs to that individual or does not belong to them.  It is not a perfect science, especially when you’re dealing with over 3,200 jurisdictions, county court houses or in Louisiana parishes that you are searching.  Federal searches and state searches – they all have different nuances involved, but the main information that you want to take away is – number one the case number and whether it was a felony or a misdemeanor.  In some cases you’ll come across traffic infractions or municipal ordinances.  Most municipal ordinances you are not concerned with.  Some traffic infractions you may, depending on if this was a speeding ticket that somebody had once three years ago, or is it somebody who has multiple DWI or DUI infractions against them.  You want to verify all of that information before moving ahead. 

 And last, but not least is if you’re ever doing a criminal check and the information that you get back just doesn’t check up, you can always get the applicant involved in by saying this is the information that you’ve come across.  With the Fair Credit Reporting Act if you’re making a decision based on the background report, you do by law have to let the applicant know that you’re making a decision, or are about to make a decision.  Before you actually make the decision you’re supposed to give them an opportunity to verify whether this information belongs to them or not.  Putting the onus on the applicant is always good advice.  Also, if you are denying them employment, always make sure that you follow the guidelines of either your corporate attorney or you become as educated as you can because you can face some liability by not abiding by the Fair Credit Reporting Act.   

 At this time I’m going to open it up to any questions that anybody would like to cover.  I wanted to hit some of the broad stroke descriptions of criminal records.  I did want to get into some specific things that you need to know about before you even get into criminal records, such as verifying the person’s identity, and then trying to dispel some of the myths that are out there.  An educated consumer is normally our best client.  We want to make sure that you have the appropriate information on what is out there.  It’s always a changing landscape, but for the most part criminal records have not changed a whole lot.  The medium that you use to access it – back in ’94 it was mainly by fax, then e-mail, and then different programs where we would give you like a user name and password to access a secure part of our website that you would be able to access.  Any questions that I could answer, just fire away.  I’d love to help you out. Is there something that I didn’t cover, any clarification, any resource that I could provide to you?  This is your opportunity to ask.

 Q:   What is the best way to do a background check?  Would it be best to do it in house, or hire somebody to do it for you?

 A:   It would depend on your resources.  If you have a network – when we established a network of researchers. The network was already established.   Now we’ve refined and we’ve added researchers and we’ve taken researchers away, but we’re constantly looking to make sure that the information that we get back is accurate.  I would have to know more about the skills of your organization – whether you have several people that are doing this; how many employees that you are hiring.  I have seen some companies that do try to do it on their own and they find that it’s a pretty tedious process and if a criminal record comes back, they don’t know how to read the actual record.  Some states are better than others of having clear information with clear dispositions in there.  That might be a question that you can call me afterwards and I can walk you through more just so that I can understand your question and more importantly what your current situation is.  If you’re able to do it on your own and you’re comfortable with the information that you’re getting that’s great.  I do know that there are some complexities to criminal records, many complexities to driving records, and then there’s a whole host of other searches that we didn’t get into which are like terrorist watch lists.   If you’re in health care whether you’re doing OIG different levels – whether you’re doing a level one, level two, level three type of credentialing that you’re doing – whether you’re verifying licenses.  I’ve had some people that thought that they were getting the information back and they were actually missing some courthouses.  But, again I’d be happy to talk more specifics to that.  My experience is usually a larger organization will outsource it as a role, because even if you’re doing it – it’s just simple economics – it’s an opportunity cost.  So whether you’re doing it or your staff is doing it – let’s just say hypothetically you’ve got somebody on your staff that you’re paying $12 an hour – their time involved in that endeavor you’re paying somebody to do that.  The average background check that we do – verifying somebody’s social security number, doing a national criminal file – that’s like under $20.  A basic background check is around $50 – $60.   A full-fledged background check with drug testing is around $100.  So you can take those figures and just do the internal math whether it justifies it from an outsourcing standpoint.  The other thing is if you’re using an outside service make sure that they do have Ariston Emissions Insurance.  That’s real, real important because if you ever talk to a background screening provider here’s a question that I ask them:  “Have you ever missed a criminal record?”   If they say, “no” then I would just immediately hang up the phone because you’re dealing with human beings and human beings do make errors.  In some cases we’ve got researchers going into a courthouse, paying the clerk a fee, and then the clerk actually does the search.  I was into a courthouse recently just because I was having a meeting in downtown Tampa.  One of our clients had one of their current employees who was involved in a Medicare fraud ring and we had to actually go down.  Now you would think that a city like Tampa – it’s a major city and everything is computerized and automated and when I was in there, in the felony records department everything is in a green manila folder with paper clips.  So I took the particular file that I was interested in – I could have reviewed it and obviously there was some time and expense.  If I wasn’t in the same block I would have simply had one of my researchers do this.  But I sometimes want to get on hands and actually see what my researchers are looking at.  And in this particular file there was a case – now you could have easily missed it – but there was another case in the file that was simply misfiled.   There was another very serious felony crime having to do with sexual abuse and drugs.  Not to say that Medicare fraud isn’t serious, but this was like pouring gasoline on a fire – what I was looking at.  And as I looked further it was misfiled.  This thing belonged to an individual – the case number was off by a digit.  And that’s what I was talking about earlier – “garbage in, garbage out”.   You need to make sure that you have the correct spelling of the person’s name and that when you’re doing searches that you’re actually modifying – it’s called a Soundex – if it sounds like the name it might be spelled just a little differently.  Again, if you’re doing a computer search and you’re just searching by a specific parameter such as the way that you think the person spells their name – or two other common ways that people that are trying to throw a criminal search off is they will give a false social security number – they’ll just transpose a number, or they’ll take their date of birth and they’ll change something on it.  Say somebody’s date of birth was August 6^th, 1960.  They’ll put it as August 5^th or August 6^th, 1958.  So they’ll change it around a little bit and many researchers when they get that information will report it back as a “no record”.  Our instructions to all of our researchers, the in house researchers that we have, is when they’re doing a search, is to look at all different ways of the person spelling their name, other ways that they spell their name and if it’s a close match on the date of birth.  It doesn’t have to be an exact match.  And my experience is nine times out of ten conservatively that the date of birth that is off by a couple of years or it’s just off by a digit really belongs to that individual.  So either the individual intentionally lied or it could have been a data entry error, a keystroke error on the clerk of the court’s duties.

 Any other questions that I can answer? 

 Q:  Yes.  This is Norma.  I did a criminal check on a person who had claimed that he had a DWI about two years ago.  Well, I found the ones that were from back in the ’70′s, but I didn’t find the one that he mentioned from two years ago.  Where can I go and double check that?  Are you going to send that information on the package that you send us?

 A:  It wouldn’t be that detailed information.  You’ve got a unique situation.  If I heard you correctly, Norma, let me just repeat the question.  You have a current applicant or a current employee that you did a recent background check on – it sounds like you pulled a driving record?  And you found one from the 1970′s, but the one that you’re looking for was just two years ago. 

Is that correct?

 Norma:  Yes.

 Kevin:  And did you pull a driving record or was this a criminal search?

 Norma:  It was a criminal record – a criminal search.

 Kevin:  Okay.  What state was this in?

 Norma:  Texas.

 Kevin:  Okay.  I think the easy solution to your situation, Norma, is – again, you did a criminal search and                         you didn’t do a driving record search – is that correct?

 Norma:  Right.

 Kevin:  Your solution is to pull his driving record.   And that’s a very good question that you bring out. 

In some states – and even if it’s supposed to be this way it sometimes is not – a DUI in some cases  is a misdemeanor, and in some cases it’s a felony, and in some cases it’s a traffic offense if it was  like a first time offense.  So, you may or may not find when a criminal record search is being done, whether it be in Texas, or Florida, or New York – you aren’t necessarily going to get the DUI or DWI.  The easy solution is pulling a Texas Department of Motor Vehicle record search. And if you have access to that you should be able to get that information back today.  I mean Texas is pretty quick about that.  And if you need any further direction on that feel free to call me or anybody on my staff.  I think you have my number, but I’ll put it out there. It’s 800-689-2228.  Or you can just go to accuscreen.com and there’s ways to contact us there.But I think that’s the easy solution.  I think when you pull the Texas driving record it should be there, and if it’s not, let me and my staff know and we’d be able to help you out.  But I think that’s the easiest solution.

Any other questions that I can answer?

Q:  Under some circumstances do you have to let an applicant know the results of a background check?  And what circumstance might that be?

 A:  Okay.  Excellent question.  Let me just repeat the question.  There are some circumstances that if you run a report, if you run a background check on somebody, the cases where you would have to let the individual know is if you do a background check on them – I’m not talking an employment verification that you do.  If you do an employment verification, if you do an education verification on your own you’re actually exempt from this.  But say you pull a criminal record check.  You use us.  You use a third party to do that – somebody that specializes in the information.  If we report back information that shows that your applicant has three felony convictions and your policy is that you cannot hire somebody based on the position that you are looking to fill, the Fair Credit Reporting Act says that number one you have to give them an opportunity.  As crazy as this sounds, but this is the way it is worded: that you have to give them “pre-adverse action notice”.  What that means is that you got information back on the background report.  We’ll just say hypothetically it’s a criminal record and we’ll also hypothetically say that these criminal records would preclude you from hiring them.  Then you have to give them pre-adverse action.  And usually pre-adverse actions says, “hey, there’s a criminal record that we have”, and you can actually just give them a copy of the report, or many of our clients just delegate it to us.  They say contact AccuScreen at this number and there’s a process that we get from the applicant or the employee.  We give them a copy of the report, so at some point the report is going to be given to them.  You might get information back from the report that is neutral, that there wasn’t a criminal record, that you pulled a background report or there was something in the background report, but it wasn’t a key influencer of your decision.  Then in that case you can simply say that whatever the situation was is that you’re moving in another direction and that you’re not hiring the person for the job.  There are cases where somebody has numerous arrests, but no convictions. And I have people ask me, “well, I don’t feel comfortable with this applicant on all of these arrests.  Can I use arrests in my hiring decision?  Can I just tell them ‘I’m not going to hire you based on the arrests’?”  That would be exposing you to some potential liability.  From attorneys that I work with the answer to that question is to find another reason if you’re not comfortable with somebody.    What I said earlier about instinct – if you have a gut instinct on somebody – the report might have come back clear, the person that you interviewed may have interviewed extremely well but something is telling your instincts that you should not hire this person or that you should not continue to hire that person, then I am saying yes, pay attention to that.  Just don’t dismiss it.  Just make sure that it is real instinct on you, because I’ve seen instinct work in the opposite direction.  That somebody thinks as soon as you meet the person that you’ve found the right person.  There are a lot of professionals at interviewing.  They can interview flawlessly.  They can tell you everything that you want to hear – especially con men, especially psychopaths or sociopaths.  I’m in an excellent book written by a colleague – study up on Robert D. Hare – Psychopaths in Suits.  What you’re trying to do is you want to unmask the person that you’re looking to hire.  You want to see who is truly the person that you’re hiring, because most of the questions that you ask an applicant, they’ve heard these questions before.  Go into any book store go on to Amazon.com and just look up “the ten toughest interview questions” or “how to answer different interview questions”.  What my secret is is to do the exact opposite of what everybody else is doing.  Whatever practices that are out there – think outside the box and think of a different way.  Just to conclude the answer to the specific question – the Fair Credit Reporting Act is “pre-adverse”, you’re supposed to tell them “some of the research that we’ve done on you has come back – we possibly are going to be moving in another direction”.    You just don’t have to definitively say that.  The Fair Credit Reporting Act doesn’t say how many days have to go by.  Some of our clients tell them that during one day and then the following day they send out either the denial of employment or the resend letter.  On average I would say three days is what I see people do.  Again, pre-adverse to the definitive “we are denying you” or “we’re resending the offer”. 

 Good question.  Any other questions that I can answer?

 Q:  If you’re getting ready to offer an applicant a position, what about asking them to bring in a driving record and a criminal report?

 A:  Sure.  In some cases that is a good practice.  The only “watch-out” would be if there’s no record on the individual, or – and I’ve seen people bring in everything from social security number cards to diplomas that are extremely authentic looking.  This gets back to computers and technology.  It gets back to what’s out on the internet.  There are places out there that specialize in diploma mills.  Diploma mills will give you a piece of paper and in some cases it’s a falsified school that they are giving you a diploma on, but there are actually diploma mills that are out there that are giving out real names of schools.  I mean the piece of paper is worthless that it’s on, but they’re giving out real information.  So diploma mills are just another “watch-out”.   If you wanted to do that, it’s fine but I would make sure that I would verify the information that you’re getting from them.   I’ll give you a couple of examples.  If you go onto the internet, and I hate to give them free publicity, but I want you – the people that are hiring and managing people – to what’s out there.  If you go to fakeresume.com, or if you just do a search for Alibi Network, you could create all of these false resumes, these false diplomas.  Most of these diploma mills get shut down and they start back up the next day.   Just be aware that if you have the applicant bring in the information – and I understand the logic.  The logic is to have them do their due diligence; have them simplify the process.  I would just make sure that you inspect the information that you get and just don’t take it at face value.  Other companies I’ve seen will do the background check and they’ll use it as an applicant fee.  They’ll actually pass the cost on of the background check to the applicant.  If everything checks out and is verified, then the company picks up the cost, but if there’s a discrepancy the applicant does not get his or her applicant fee back there.  I hope that answered that question. 

 Any other questions?  Again, there’s no such thing as a stupid question – just the question that you didn’t ask.  We’ve got some excellent questions here.  Any other questions?  It doesn’t have to be on criminal records.  It can be on anything – pre-employment, infinity screening, fraud, scams, schemes.

 Okay, it was a pleasure to be with you and I realize some people are shy about wanting to ask questions, although I think we’ve got a good cross-section of questions.  If you have any questions that you were a little shy or something popped into your head, either this afternoon or tonight or tomorrow, or even over the weekend, feel free to e-mail.  You can e-mail me directly or you can e-mail info@accuscreen.com, but I will give you my e-mail.  It’s kevinconnell@accuscreen.com.   And one last time I’ll give out our phone number – 800-689-2228.  My specific extension is 1101, and anybody on my staff can help you but I would be happy to help you out.  There will be some follow-up materials that we’ll send out that we promised to send to you.  There will be a sample release form, a sample of three different ways to ask the criminal questions, and after you get the information if there’s other information, resources, or questions just feel free – whatever the easiest way for you to contact us is.  To some people it’s through the web, other people it’s through e-mail, others they just want to pick up the phone and call.  That’s why I’m giving you a variety of ways to reach us. 

 I thank you for joining me and I wish you nothing but the best.  Take care.  This is Kevin Connell.

AccuScreen CEO Will Discuss Resume Lying on Fox 13 News Tampa Bay

In a segment to appear during the Fox 13 Late News, Kevin Connell of AccuScreen addresses the increased incidence of resume falsifications and provides advice for job-seekers and employers.

Tampa, FL / January 14, 2009 – AccuScreen Founder and CEO Kevin Connell will appear today on the 10 p.m. edition of the Fox 13 News in a segment focusing on resume lying among job-seekers. Following its broadcast the segment will be available for archived viewing on the Fox 13 website.

AccuScreen is a leader and expert in employment background screening, specializing in criminal background checks. Connell will speak on the most common resume lies that his firm finds in their work with employers. The most common resume falsifications involve these key pieces of information:

• Dates of employment
• Job title (inflated rank)
• Criminal records
• Salary level
• Education (e.g. bogus degrees from diploma ‘mills’)

• Professional license (e.g. MD, RN, CPA, etc.)
• Self-owned business (e.g. ‘ghost’ company)

“In a challenging economy, people tend to lie more,” says Connell. “I regularly teach classes and seminars about the routine causes of fraud in the workplace. These same elements are at work in resume lying and employers have a measure of control in addressing these factors.”

According to Connell, job-seekers must be made aware that in an especially competitive job market, employers are intensely scrutinizing employment backgrounds, education credentials, and other key information contained in their resume or application.

“It’s a buyer’s market for hiring managers and recruiters,” says Connell. “Our clients, who know that 43% of resumes we screen include a discrepancy, likewise know to be vigilant and thorough in their background screening measures.”

Those who wish to view the Fox News Segment during the on-air broadcast should tune in at 10 p.m. The segment will be available for viewing online. AccuScreen will provide a link to the recorded broadcast on their website.

For additional information about resume lying and matters of employment screening, AccuScreen provides an eBook, “The Business Guide to Background Checks” available on the company blog for download here: http://www.backgroundcheckscenter.com/

About AccuScreen, Inc.

Since 1994, AccuScreen, Inc. 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 in 2 – 72 hours. CEO Kevin G. 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 also serves as a national speaker and expert in negligent hiring, resume fraud, employee theft, and embezzlement.

AccuScreen CEO Will Discuss Resume Lying on Fox 13 News Tampa Bay

In a segment to appear during the Fox 13 Late News, Kevin Connell of AccuScreen addresses the increased incidence of resume falsifications and provides advice for job-seekers and employers.

Tampa, FL / January 14, 2009 – AccuScreen Founder and CEO, Kevin Connell, will appear today on the 10 p.m. edition of the Fox 13 News in a segment focusing on resume lying among job-seekers. Following its broadcast the segment will be available for archived viewing on the Fox 13 website.

AccuScreen is a leader and expert in employment background screening, specializing in criminal background checks. Connell will speak on the most common resume lies that his firm finds in their work with employers. The most common resume falsifications involve these key pieces of information:

• Dates of employment
• Job title (inflated rank)
• Criminal records
• Salary level
• Education (e.g. bogus degrees from diploma ‘mills’)
• Professional license (e.g. MD, RN, CPA, etc.)
• Self-owned business (e.g. ‘ghost’ company)

“In a challenging economy, people tend to lie more,” says Connell. “I regularly teach classes and seminars about the routine causes of fraud in the workplace. These same elements are at work in resume lying and employers have a measure of control in addressing these factors.”

According to Connell, job-seekers must be made aware that in an especially competitive job market, employers are intensely scrutinizing employment backgrounds, education credentials, and other key information contained in their resume or application.

“It’s a buyer’s market for hiring managers and recruiters,” says Connell. “Our clients, who know that 43% of resumes we screen include a discrepancy, likewise know to be vigilant and thorough in their background screening measures.”

Those who wish to view the Fox News Segment during the on-air broadcast should tune in at 10 p.m. The segment will be available for viewing online. AccuScreen will provide a link to the recorded broadcast on their website.

For additional information about resume lying and matters of employment screening, AccuScreen provides an eBook, “The Business Guide to Background Checks” available on the company blog for download here: http://www.backgroundcheckscenter.com/

About AccuScreen, Inc.

Since 1994, AccuScreen, Inc. 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 in 2 – 72 hours. CEO, Kevin G. 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 also serves as a national speaker and expert in negligent hiring, resume fraud, employee theft, and embezzlement.