Backgrounds Online Blog

  • New Orleans Passed A Ban The B​ox Law​

    November 13, 2018
    The City Council decreed that city employers and contractor may not include question about criminal records on job applications.
    Backgrounds Online | November 13, 2018


    The city council decreed that city employers and contractors may not include questions about criminal records on job applications.

    The New Orleans Law

    On October 18, 2018 the city of New Orleans announced that they passed a new Ban the Box Ordinance. It prohibits city employers and contractors from including questions about criminal records on their job applications. These employers are still encouraged to run criminal background checks on job seekers, but only after conducting an interview or extending a conditional job offer.

    New Orleans already had a similar law in place that covered classified and unclassified positions for city departments, agencies and boards. This new law expands the scope and goes into effect on March 1, 2019.

    Why They Implemented A Ban The Box Policy

    The primary goal of banning the box is to help people with criminal histories find jobs and, in turn, reduce the likelihood that people will be arrested again. Prior to the Ordinance, applications that New Orleans residents completed in the hopes of landing a job with the city were allowed to ask if the person had a conviction. Individuals who did were asked to check a box. Doing so made it unlikely for them to receive further consideration even if they were highly qualified and eligible for a position.

    The new law prohibits that practice. It gives employers a chance to see the person’s qualifications before learning if they have any criminal history. If a job seeker has a conviction, then the city employer may consider whether or not it is relevant to the position.

    Councilmember Kristin Palmer spoke in favor of the new law. She said: “I've heard personal stories from ex-offenders and their families who remind us that, for far too long our criminal justice system has placed its priorities in punishment and not rehabilitation. Ex-offenders should not serve a life sentence after serving time in prison. This new policy allows them a chance to be considered for employment based on their qualifications and experience related to the position they're applying for and not their past."

    The Growth Of Second Chance Laws

    Millions of Americans have been arrested. While many of these arrests and convictions were for minor offenses, simply having any type of criminal history can make it difficult for people to find jobs. An inability to obtain employment is a major factor for recidivism, which can lead to an ongoing pattern of new arrests and convictions.

    Second chance laws, like banning questions about convictions from job applications, are intended to create a better, safer experience for everyone. People who have convictions from many years ago or were arrested for something minor are given opportunities to rejoin the workforce. Employers receive more chances to find qualified and eligible people for their team.

    Keeping Up With Relevant Laws

    Many states already have second chance laws and more are expected to follow. To help you keep up with these and other relevant regulations, Backgrounds Online maintains a State Law section. When new state laws are passed, they will be added for your convenience. Use this to learn about laws that are in place where you operate.

    If you have questions about your background screening policies, what laws affect you or anything else related to background screening, please contact us. Our background check processing team is friendly, experienced and here to assist you Monday through Friday from 5am to 6pm Pacific time.

  • San Francisco Updated Their Fair Chance Ordinance

    November 06, 2018
    Employers who have people that work in San Francisco should be aware of and use the current version of this ordinance.
    Backgrounds Online | November 06, 2018


    Employers who have people that work in San Francisco should be aware of and use the current version of this ordinance.

    About The Updates

    The City of San Francisco amended their Fair Chance Ordinance, a law that is designed to help people with criminal histories find employment today. This Ordinance covers employers who have individuals that work at least 8 hours per week within San Francisco.

    When the Ordinance was originally created, it affected employers with 20 or more employees. The revised version covers employers that have at least 5 people on their staff. It also applies to employment agencies and related businesses, city contractors and sub-contractors.

    San Francisco’s updated Fair Chance Ordinance went into effect on October 1, 2018.

    Regulations For Employers In San Francisco

    Organizations that are covered by the Ordinance should know about the following updates. Affected employers:
    · May not ask about arrests or convictions on job applications.
    · May not ask about, seek out or request disclosures regarding arrests or convictions until after they make a conditional offer of employment.
    · May consider convictions that are related to the job but may not consider:
    o Arrests that did not lead to convictions.
    o Convictions that were expunged or dismissed.
    o Juvenile convictions.
    o Convictions that are more than 7 years old (unless the individual will work with vulnerable populations).
    o Infractions.
    o Participation in a deferral of judgment program.

    Employers should be aware that if they do not follow the updated Fair Chance Ordinance, then they could be sued or fined. Penalties have increased to $500 for the first violation; $1,000 for the second and $2,000 for additional violations.

    The city of San Francisco created a PDF of the new Fair Chance Ordinance. It must be provided to applicants and posted in English, Spanish, Chinese and any other language spoken by at least 5% of the employees at the workplace or jobsite.

    Adverse Actions

    Before taking an adverse action, such as revoking a conditional job offer, employers must follow a process established by the Fair Credit Reporting Act. San Francisco created a few specific details for the adverse action process.

    An applicant who is being reviewed must receive a copy of their background check if one exists. Then the person has seven days to respond with “evidence of inaccuracies on the background check or evidence of rehabilitation or other mitigating factors.” The FCRA requires a reasonable amount of time but no specific timeframe is listed. If the person supplies evidence of rehabilitation, then the employer must reconsider the adverse action.

    Second Chance Laws

    Cities and states across the nation have been implementing second chance laws like the updated Fair Chance Ordinance in San Francisco. While none of them are consistent, they all share the same overall goal: to help people who have criminal convictions find employment.

    While some convictions are serious and violent enough to cause employers deny employment, many are minor and should not affect the individual’s ability to obtain work. Second chance laws are designed to give these people an opportunity to be interviewed and discuss their qualifications. Employers are allowed and encouraged to run background checks on candidates they are considering, and these laws help make it possible for them to hear from a larger group of people who may be right for a position.

    Staying Compliant Throughout The Hiring Process

    Since there is no one law that covers second chance concepts in the United States, employers must follow relevant laws where they operate. Backgrounds Online strives to keep up with these laws and provide educational resources to help with your compliance efforts.

    Our highly trained team also works diligently to help you create background check packages that provide the details you need to make informed business decisions. To learn how we can help improve your hiring process, please contact us today. .

  • California Is Changing Rules For The Sex Offender Registry​

    October 30, 2018
    The sunshine state passed a law that redefines rules for individuals who are added to the sex offender registry.
    Backgrounds Online | October 30, 2018


    The sunshine state passed a law that redefines rules for individuals who are added to the sex offender registry.

    How The Registry Works Now

    Current California law states that any resident who is convicted of a sexual crime must register as an offender. Anyone who fails to do so could be arrested and charged with a misdemeanor or felony based on the scope of their initial offense. After registering, the individual is listed on a public database. Information about their offense and conviction is then accessible to the public online.

    There are many different types of sexual offenses. Every conviction currently requires the person to be permanently listed on the sex offender registry. The upcoming Senate Bill 384 (SB 384), commonly known as the Sex Offender Registration Act, will revise that.

    What Will Change

    The registry will be broken up into three tiers:

    Offenses that are deemed a Tier 1 will require the person to be listed on the sex offender registry for a minimum of ten years after their date of discharge. Following the stipulated period of time, the person may appeal to be removed from the registry. SB 384 states that Tier 1 includes offenders who are convicted of a misdemeanor or felony that was not considered serious or violent.

    Offenses that are deemed a Tier 2 will require the person to be listed on the sex offender registry for a minimum of twenty years after their date of discharge. Once the decreed period of time has passed, the person may appeal to be removed from the registry. SB 384 states that Tier 2 includes offenders who were convicted of the type of offenses described in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 or subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7, Section 285, subdivision (g) or (h) of Section 286, subdivision (g) or (h) of Section 288a, subdivision (b) of Section 289, or Section 647.6 if it is a second or subsequent conviction for that offense which was tried separately.

    Offenses that are deemed a Tier 3 will require the person to be permanently listed on the sex offender registry. This includes (but is not limited to):
    · Habitual offenders.
    · Offenders that are deemed to be sexually violent predators.
    · Offenders who are considered to have an above average risk of committing additional sexual crimes.
    · Offenders who were sentenced to fifteen or more years.

    Juvenile offenders will have a similar tier system with differing timeframes.

    How This Could Impact Employers

    Currently, individuals who are listed on the registry cannot remove themselves at any time. Those individuals are likely to have a difficult time finding employment in most industries. Once the new system is in place, Tier 1 and Tier 2 offenders may be able to remove their names from the registry. If that happens, then the individual’s registration would not be available on a criminal background check. This could open job opportunities for former offenders and expand the applicant pool for employers.

    Backgrounds Online is a consumer reporting agency that is accredited by The National Association of Professional Background Screeners. Our team makes efforts to keep up with laws that affect employers throughout the nation. If you have questions about running background checks, what type of information is legally available or how we can help with your hiring efforts, please contact us today.

  • The Importance Of A Proper Adverse Action Policy

    October 23, 2018
    Before taking an adverse action based on a background check, employers must follow a few federally mandated steps.
    Backgrounds Online | October 23, 2018


    Before taking an adverse action based on a background check, employers must follow a few federally mandated steps.

    The Adverse Action Process

    Every employer should run background checks on potential employees, volunteers, contractors or anyone else who might work on their behalf. In some cases, a background report may reveal information that causes the employer to consider an adverse action such as denying employment. In this scenario, the employer is obligated to follow a process established by a federal law known as the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

    This process requires:
    - Sending a pre-adverse notification to the applicant. This document explains that an adverse action is being considered (but hasn’t occurred yet) and why. It must be accompanied by a copy of the person’s background check, contact information for the Consumer Reporting Agency (CRA) that produced the report and a document called A Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
    - After receiving this notification, the person must be allotted a reasonable amount of time to review everything and file a dispute if warranted. While no specific timeframe is given, best practice is at least one week.
    - If a dispute is filed, then the CRA must conduct a reinvestigation and make corrections as necessary. If no dispute is filed, then the employer may proceed by sending a second document that explains an adverse action occurred. It must be accompanied by contact information for the CRA that produced the report and another copy of A Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

    Updates To The Summary Of Rights Under The FCRA Doc

    In September 2018, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection made a revision to the Summary of Rights Under The FCRA document. This update informs consumers of their right to place a “security freeze” on their credit report. If a consumer chooses this option, then their credit report will not be available to any CRA.

    The update also stipulates that consumers can place fraud alerts on their credit file at no cost to them. When this alert is present, credit providers must contact the consumer to verify their identity before extending any new credit.

    You can find the updated Summary document by logging in to your account and visiting our Resource Center.

    An Example Of Why These Steps Are Essential

    We’ve seen numerous stories about employers who were sued for not properly following the adverse action process. For example, in August, 2018 the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed a case in which a job seeker was denied employment based on the results of a criminal background check. However, that person was not given an opportunity to review their report and initiate a dispute.

    According to the case, the information in the background check was about an arrest that did not result in a conviction. Therefore, it should not have been included or considered by the employer. After an initial hearing, this case was moved to the appellate court and the plaintiff’s claim was affirmed. The court noted that the FCRA obligates employers to give applicants time to review their background check before taking any adverse action.

    Because Allied allegedly did not follow FCRA regulations, the case against them will now proceed.

    What Employers Should Know

    Following laws established by the FCRA, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and state governments is essential. Employers must be aware of these laws and compliant with those that are active where they operate. Best practice is for employers to maintain an internal document that thoroughly explains their screening policies and adherence to relevant laws.

    The team at Backgrounds Online works hard to keep up with federal, state and local laws and provide educational materials that can help your compliance efforts. We partner with you throughout the background screening process and endeavor to comply with applicable laws and best practices, such as not including non-conviction data on background reports.

    If you have questions about compliance, your background screening process or related topics, please contact us for expert assistance today..

  • Weaknesses In The Missouri Sex Offender Program​

    October 16, 2018
    An audit found weaknesses in state laws, highway patrol procedures and the enforcement of registry requirements.
    Backgrounds Online | October 16, 2018


    An audit found weaknesses in state laws, highway patrol procedures and the enforcement of registry requirements.

    About The Audit

    Missouri’s Sex Offender registration program was reviewed by the State Auditor to evaluate three primary items:
    The effectiveness of law enforcement in enforcing state requirements.
    The efficiency of management practices regarding registration.
    Compliance with legal provisions related to registration.

    The registration process is managed by the Criminal Justice Information Services Division of the Missouri State Highway Patrol (MSHP) with assistance from state and local agencies. The MSHP maintains a database of individuals who are required to register. This information is made available to the public via a website.

    Schools Are Not Required To Background Check Volunteers

    One of the biggest issues found during the audit was that state does not require background checks on school volunteers. This means people who are allowed to work with students have not necessarily gone through a background screening process. These volunteers may work in classrooms, participate in field trips and have direct access to young people.

    Some schools have voluntarily implemented background screening policies for their volunteers, but there is no state law that says it is required. The Missouri School Board Association (MSBA) merely recommends that districts perform a basic check. The audit indicated this as a major weakness. Any person who is allowed to work with students should first go through a comprehensive background screening.

    Missouri Cannot Account For More Than 1,200 Offenders

    Sex offenders are required to register as frequently as every 90 days. This allows the state to keep track of their whereabouts and other activities. More than 1,200 offenders have not fulfilled this requirement and the state has lost track of them.

    According to the audit, at least 794 of these individuals are Tier III offenders, which means they have been convicted of the most serious types of sexual offenses. In most cases, arrest warrants have not been issued for these non-compliant offenders. Law enforcement officers have reportedly put a higher priority on other issues.

    Concerns About Highway Patrol Procedures

    Another issue addressed in the audit is that the MSHP does not properly maintain the sex offender database. Offenders who are out of compliance, by not completing their registration requirements, are shown to be fully compliant.

    Nicole Galloway, who led efforts to conduct the audit, said that this situation is “Providing a false sense of security. The public assumes information in the sex offender registry is correct, when in fact it is not.”

    An additional concern expressed about MSHP procedures was that they have not created agreements with other state agencies to share information. Doing this can help relocate offenders who failed to register. On top of these issues, the audit noted the MSHP does not have a system in place that can adequately spot incorrect or inappropriate data entered into the system.

    The full audit, including a response from the Missouri State Highway Patrol, can be found here.

    The Importance Of Strong Background Screening Procedures

    Despite not being mandated by the state, many Missouri schools run background checks on all volunteers. At Backgrounds Online, we consider this to be an essential task. Volunteers who will have access to young people, the elderly or anyone else should go through a comprehensive criminal background check. This helps to verify that the person does not have a serious or otherwise violent criminal past.

    If you have questions about how you can improve your background screening process, please contact us. Our team is experienced at creating background check packages that are ideal for employees, contractors, volunteers and other business-related situations. We are available to assist you Monday – Friday from 5am to 6pm PT.

  • A Convicted Murderer Got A Job Working With Children

    October 09, 2018
    Despite his murder conviction, a man was hired at the NY Administration for Children’s Service. He is accused of assaulting a 6-year-old while on the job.
    Backgrounds Online | October 09, 2018


    Despite his conviction, a man was hired at the NY Administration for Children’s Service. He is accused of assaulting a 6-year-old boy while on the job.

    The Alleged Assault

    A man named Jacques Edwards was hired to work at the New York based Administration for Children’s Service (ACS). In August 2018, stories broke about Edwards allegedly assaulting a 6-year-old boy who was under his care. According to a criminal complaint, the worker pushed this child into a door and then slammed his head against a filing cabinet. Edwards claims this was done in self-defense.

    One statement regarding the alleged assault mentioned that Edwards has a raised scar and the boy was attempting to tear it off. Edwards said the child was biting and scratching his arm. He suggested that his actions were solely to prevent the boy from doing additional harm to him. Surveillance cameras in the facility captured the incident. This footage was used to initiate a case against Edwards.

    Violent Past

    When Edwards was 18 he was involved in a fatal shooting. He was convicted of this crime and served 28 years. His sentence was completed in 2010 and Edwards was once again free.

    A few years later, Edwards applied for and was granted a position at the ACS. He worked there for more than 4 years before this alleged assault occurred.

    Was The Worker Background Screened?

    ACS employees work with young children. Therefore, applicants who have violent, sexual or other serious criminal histories should be automatically disqualified from obtaining positions with the organization. Despite his conviction, however, Edwards was granted employment in 2014.

    An investigation commenced into why and how this happened. The ACS is accused of not running a background check on Edwards. Had they conducted a criminal background investigation, his violent conviction would have been discovered and he would have been deemed ineligible for hire.

    Next Steps For The ACS

    ACS Commissioner David Hansell reportedly blamed his predecessor for the failure to background screen Edwards. During a press conference he said they would “review the circumstances under which he was hired.” Hansell also admitted that he was uncertain if other employees might have criminal convictions and ordered “spot checks” on the staff.

    Moving forward, the ACS intends to run background checks on everyone who applies for work. They will use these reports to find out if an applicant has a serious conviction and to help determine if each person is qualified for hire.

    What Employers Should Know

    It is imperative to run background checks on potential employees, contractors and volunteers. In most cases a criminal conviction does not automatically disqualify a person. Each one should be reviewed and considered based on the type of position, relevancy of the offense, how long ago the offense occurred and other relevant factors.

    There are strong rules for anyone who will work with children, the elderly or other vulnerable persons. Applicants who have certain types of convictions are not eligible for such positions. Employers who hire workers that will have direct contact with these individuals, be granted access to customer’s homes or otherwise have direct access to another human being should always run comprehensive background checks to help protect the people they serve.

    Is your business background screening applicants and employees to meet due diligence requirements? If not, or if you have questions about improving your screening policies, please contact us. Our experienced and knowledgeable team is here Monday – Friday from 5am to 6pm to assist you.

  • Omnicare Sued For $1.3M For A Background Screening Violation

    October 02, 2018
    A federal judge approved a $1.3 million class action lawsuit that claims the company violated federal and state laws for consumer reports.
    Backgrounds Online | October 02, 2018


    A federal judge approved a $1.3 million class action lawsuit that claims the company violated federal and state laws for consumer reports.

    Cause Of The Lawsuit

    This case began when Ijeoma Esomonu applied for a job at Omnicare and was asked to authorize a background check. Employers must obtain authorization before initiating a background screening, but Omnicare allegedly included a liability waiver on their form. While such clauses may be common, they cannot legally be included on a background check authorization document.

    Esomonu initiated a lawsuit that claimed Omnicare was not compliant with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and that the employer violated California’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act. Additional plaintiffs joined until around 50,000 people were involved in the class action suit.

    Compensation Requested

    In 2017 both parties agreed to a proposed settlement. It was, however, rejected by a judge who felt the payout amount was too high. Esomonu and Omnicare continued the negotiation process and agreed to the $1.3 million figure.

    U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. approved the revised proposal. He felt the plaintiff’s claims had sufficient commonality and that Esomonu was suited to represent the group. The judge stated that the payment amount is reasonable based on the time spent on negotiations and the risks involved with continued litigation. Based on the total, each participant is expected to receive around $16.50 in compensation.

    Background Check Authorization Forms

    Before running a background check on an applicant, contractor, employee or anyone else, an employer must have a permissible purpose and written authorization from the subject. This authorization request form must be a standalone document. Including any extra content is a violation of the FCRA and can lead the serious repercussions such as a class action lawsuit.

    To help our clients with their compliance efforts, Backgrounds Online provides a packet that includes a sample standalone authorization document. To review and download a copy, login to your account and visit our Resource Center.

    Takeaway For Employers

    Every employer is responsible for complying with the FCRA, guidelines established by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and federal or state laws that are in place where they operate. Keeping up with all these can be difficult, but the highly experienced team at Backgrounds Online acts as your partner throughout the background screening process.

    We strive to keep up with current, new and changing laws so we can provide educational resources, compliant background screening forms and other essential assets. If you have questions about how we can help with your background screening efforts, please contact us today.

  • A Hampton City Employee's Shocking Criminal History

    September 25, 2018
    The City of Hampton hired a pump station mechanic who had a serious criminal history.
    Backgrounds Online | September 25, 2018


    The City of Hampton hired a pump station mechanic without background screening the applicant. They were later shocked to learn about his criminal history.

    Charges

    A man named Robert Dobbins was hired by the city of Hampton as an on-call water station pump mechanic. On his official paperwork, Dobbins indicated that he had never been convicted of a felony. That was deemed sufficient and no background check was run. The city offered him a job and a smartphone so he could be contacted in case of emergency.

    While Dobbins was an active employee in good standing, the city was contacted by an officer from a federal law enforcement agency. A city representative was informed that the agency ran a sting to catch predators. During that time, the agency identified Dobbins as the owner of an online account which displayed pictures of young children. The news got even worse from there.

    Hampton city official learned that Dobbins had “committed a hands-on offense against a child” and was involved in child pornography. While unknowingly involved in the sting operation, Dobbins sent a link that contained child pornography to one of the investigators.

    Based on these charges, Dobbins was arrested. He later revealed that he had used his city-issued phone to access child pornography. City officials also discovered that Dobbins had previously been convicted for receipt and possession of child pornography. These charges would have been available on a background check report.

    Why He Wasn’t Screened

    The city of Hampton has specific background screening regulations in place. They screen any potential employee who might handle money, enter someone’s home, work with minors or be placed in a position that involves public safety. Since Dobbins was hired as a mechanic, city policy did not require him to go through a background screening.

    At this time, the city does not plan to update their background screening process. Robin McCormick, the city’s Communications Strategist, believes this was an isolated incident and no policy revisions are necessary.

    The Importance Of Screening Everyone

    At Backgrounds Online we believe it is crucial to screen potential employees, volunteers, contractors and anyone else who could represent your brand. Running background checks shows you are taking precautions to confirm the people who work for your business or organization do not have a serious criminal history.

    Your customers, staff and the public rely on you to run background checks to help ensure the people you hire or contract are safe and trustworthy. The residents of Hampton would not approve of a city employee who has convictions for child pornography. Your customers would not approve of you hiring an individual who has a violent or otherwise dangerous criminal history.

    Ongoing Monitoring

    Ongoing background screenings are just as essential as the initial background check. This shows you if someone who represents your business has a new criminal conviction. It’s like a continuous security policy for your business and reputation.

    If you have questions about your screening policies, what types of background checks you should be running or ongoing monitoring, please contact us. Our educated team is available to assist you Monday – Friday from 5am to 6pm PT. We look forward to hearing from you.

  • A CA Supreme Court Decision Regarding Background Checks

    September 18, 2018
    The Court reviewed two background screening laws to determine if one was vague and the two contradicted each other.
    Backgrounds Online | September 18, 2018

    The Court reviewed two background screening laws to determine if one was vague and the two contradicted each other.

    About The Case

    A group of current and former bus drivers who worked for First Student, Inc., and First Transit, Inc. (known collectively as “First”) filed a class action lawsuit against the employer. The suit, which was initiated by Eileen Connor, alleged that First ran background checks without proper authorization.

    According to the lawsuit, First provided drivers with a pre-hire package that contained an Investigative Consumer Report Disclosure and Release notice. The document reportedly included information about the recipient’s rights and a box people could check to indicate they wanted to receive a copy of their background report. It also reportedly included content that was meant to release First from all claims and damages related to a background investigation.

    Connor’s lawsuit claimed she did not authorize First to conduct a background screening. Before initiating a background check, employers must provide a written disclosure and get the person’s written authorization. This disclosure may not contain any additional content, such as text that says the employer cannot be held liable.

    When the case was initially reviewed in court, First requested and was granted a summary judgment. An appeals court overturned that and sided with the plaintiffs. A major factor in this case and their decision involved two existing laws about background screening in California.

    The Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act and The Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act

    While considering this case, the CA Supreme Court reviewed The Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA) and The Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRAA). After the lawsuit was filed, First claimed that this case should be dismissed because the CCRAA, which governs consumer credit issues, was constitutionally vague and the two laws contradicted each other.

    After consideration, the court determined that the CCRAA was not constitutionally vague and the laws were not contradictory. Associate Justice Ming W. Chin wrote that the court finds: “Potential employers can comply with both statutes without undermining the purpose of either. If an employer seeks a consumer’s credit records exclusively, then the employer need only comply with CCRAA. An employer seeking other information that is obtained by any means must comply with ICRAA.”

    In their ruling the court also stated that “It seems to us that such a duality does not make legal compliance particularly difficult, much less impossible.”

    What Employers Should Know

    Every employer should be aware that they must obtain authorization from a person before running a background check on them. California employers should further be aware of the ICRA and the CCRAA.

    The ICRAA is like the state version of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. It governs the use of consumer reports, such as background checks, about what can be included regarding a consumer’s character and reputation. The CCRAA covers consumer credit issues. While the two may have similarities and overlap a little, the conclusion of the CA Supreme Court is that both are valid, clear laws that stand alone and can both be followed.

    Employers must comply with laws that are in effect wherever they operate. The team at Backgrounds Online makes efforts to keep up with these laws and provide educational resources that can assist with your compliance efforts. If you have questions about how we can help with your background screening process, please contact us today.

  • Hiring The Wrong Person: What’s At Stake

    September 11, 2018
    The website B2C published an article about the true cost of not properly vetting and background screening job applicants.
    Backgrounds Online | September 11, 2018

    The website B2C published an article about the true cost of not properly vetting and background screening job applicants.

    About The Article

    A website called Business 2 Community did an investigation about what can go wrong when a business makes a bad hire. They came to some important conclusions.

    Bad hires were listed under two categories: people who have slightly misleading information on their resumes and those who lie to gain positions for which they are not qualified. According to the article, both types of bad hires can cause:

    High Turnover Rates

    If you hire someone who is not qualified for the position, they are far less likely to succeed. This can lead to several unfortunate outcomes. The new hire might have to be let go during their first few months. A new employee might decide they are in over their head and leave on their own. Existing employees may become frustrated while dealing with an unqualified person and decide to move on.

    Additional Expenses

    Bringing a new hire up to speed can be costly. It requires time, assistance from existing team members and other resources. If, after all that, you end up losing the new person or other employees, you’ll have to start the entire process again.

    Lower Productivity

    The article stated that a bad hire can be troublesome for morale, lead to a decrease in teamwork and, therefore, result in lower productivity for the entire team. It referenced a survey that showed 39% of businesses reported a direct link between bad hires and lowered productivity.

    Avoiding Bad Hires

    Business 2 Community concluded that the best way to avoid hiring people who are not qualified is to run comprehensive background checks on the candidates you are considering. A background check can provide the details you need to find people who are qualified to help your business succeed. Rely on them to:
    · Verify employment. Learn about the candidates work history, job title, responsibilities and more.
    · Verify education. Find out if a person completed their schooling, earned required degrees and has the training they need to handle a position.
    · Verify credentials. Some positions require a person to have a specific type of credential. Use a background check to find out whether or not they do.
    · Check references. A background check can include the results of a detailed interview with an applicant’s former managers and colleagues. This information helps show you their work ethic, communication skills and much more.

    Protect Your Business

    Businesses rely on background checks to help them make informed hiring decisions. These reports can also show you if a candidate has serious criminal convictions that could be a detriment to your company. Use that information to help protect your team, customers and the public. Running a background check is an essential part of your due diligence process that can save you time, money and stress.

    Have questions about how background checks can help your business? Contact the experts at Backgrounds Online. We are available Monday – Friday from 5am to 6pm to assist you..

  • Lyft Will Run Comprehensive Background Checks

    September 04, 2018
    The rideshare company, like many on-demand businesses, has established stronger background screening policies.
    Backgrounds Online | September 04, 2018

    The rideshare company, like many other on-demand businesses, has established authoritative background screening policies.

    What Led To This Decision

    The necessity for comprehensive and ongoing background checks has become a newsworthy topic. We’ve seen national stories about major companies like Home Advisor and Uber not having sufficient background screening policies. This can cause people to wonder if it is safe to utilize the services of such companies.

    Rideshare provider Lyft is in a similar spotlight.

    A Lyft driver name Vilchez Lazo was recently arrested in San Francisco. He is charged with raping four women whom he allegedly lured into his vehicle under the pretense that he’d been assigned to pick them up. Lazo was not on duty at the time so he was not supposed to drive any customers. Therefore, Lyft would have no record of him providing rides to these passengers.

    Following an investigation, it was revealed that Lazo has been living in the country illegally. He is currently in jail and could be sentenced to life in prison. If Lazo is released, then the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency hopes to deport him back to Peru.

    Lyfts “Enhanced Detection Process” For Background Screening

    According to a Lyft spokesperson, Lazo "fraudulently represented himself" when he applied for a driving position. Per company policy, Lazo authorized and passed a background screening. The background check package that was used for him and other drivers, however, is said to be a quick, minimal check of a few databases. It would not provide enough information to show that Lazo wasn’t eligible to be hired as a contractor.

    Lyft agreed to step up and run more comprehensive background checks on their applicants. They also agreed to run annual screenings on active contractors to see if anyone who works/contracts for them incurs a new conviction of which they should be aware.

    Kate Margolis, a Lyft spokesperson, offered the term Enhanced Detection Process when talking about the company’s new background screening policies. She did not provide additional information on what they would include.

    Background Checks For Every Industry

    Businesses that offer on-demand services have an obligation to their customers to thoroughly screen every employee and contractor. While this is the case for every industry, people who work for on-demand industries are likely to have direct and frequent access to the public. They may drive customers, enter their homes or have access to personal data.

    Every business should run background checks and consider annual screenings for all employees, volunteers and contractors. This helps the employer create and maintain a safe workplace, protect the public and show they are performing due diligence.

    What Are Your Screening Policies?

    If one of your employees committed a crime, would you be able to show you took reasonable precautions to ensure the person was safe and qualified before hiring them? Running background checks is an ideal way to demonstrate that you are taking steps to only hire people who are safe and eligible.

    If you need help creating background screening packages that are perfectly suited for every type of position in your business, then please contact us. Our team of experts is adept at learning about your hiring and screening needs and then putting together fully customized solutions for you.

  • Vermont Prohibits No Rehire Clauses For Discrimination Cases​

    August 28, 2018
    A state laws bans employers from including Not Eligible For Rehire statements into settlements and discrimination cases.
    Backgrounds Online | August 28, 2018

    A state law bans employers from including “not eligible for rehire” statements into settlements for discrimination cases.

    About The Law

    This is an amendment to existing anti-discrimination/harassment laws. It was inspired by the #MeToo movement and is the first of its kind. The updated law:
    • Bans employers from including “No Rehire” clauses in discrimination settlement agreements.
    • Prohibits nondisclosure agreements that say employees may not report instances of harassment.
    • Establishes an easier method for employees to report sexual harassment to the Vermont Human Rights Commission or Attorney General's Office.

    Why It Was Created

    The law is intended to help victims of sexual harassment and discrimination. Currently, employees who report these crimes may be required to sign a settlement agreement that say the person may not work for the employer, its parent company or any affiliates.

    Representative Sarah Copeland-Hanzas, primary author of the bill, felt this practice was unfair. She commented that the no rehire clauses can place a large burden on someone’s career and specified that if you are in “a specialty field in a small state; that might mean you can never work again."

    Corporations typically own numerous brands. One prime example of this in Vermont is Unilever, which owns more than 400, including Ben & Jerry’s ice cream. If a Vermont employee signed a no rehire clause with a company like that, it could drastically limit their future employment options.

    Opposition

    Not everyone agrees that this law should have been implemented. Those who oppose it say “separation agreements” are a common business practice. One reason for this is to help employers avoid the risk of lawsuits. If a person who was involved in a discrimination suit applies for a job with the same company but is unsuccessful, they may be able to file a case against the company and claim this was an act of retaliation if a no rehire clause is not in the settlement.

    If, however, the former employee signed an agreement that includes a no rehire clause, then that risk is alleviated. This clause is used to stipulate that the person agrees they will no longer be employed and won’t attempt to seek another position within the company.

    The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) chimed in on this topic. They suggested that the practice of asking people to sign no rehire clause could be construed as an act of retaliation against the person who filed a discrimination or harassment claim.

    What VT Employers Should Know

    Vermont employers should be aware of and compliant with this new law. Employees who settle discrimination or harassment claims cannot be forced to sign no rehire clauses.

    Laws that cover what employers can and cannot do vary by state. It can be difficult to keep up with all the laws that affect your business. At Backgrounds Online, we are dedicated to providing educational resources to help our clients with their compliance efforts.

    If you have questions about background screening where your business operates, please contact us. Our highly trained team is available Monday – Friday from 5am to 6pm PT.