EmployeeScreen University » All In One

9/12/2011 ASHHRA Annual Conference (Speaking Engagement)

2011-08-15T18:31:07Z

EmployeeScreenIQ’s Jason B. Morris will be speaking at the 47th Annual ASHHRA Conference & Exposition in Phoenix, AZ at the Phoenix Convention Center on September 12, 2011 at 3:45 pm pst.

Recruiting and Hiring Liabilities for Healthcare Professionals

Technology has dramatically changed the way we compete for talent and screen prospective employees, but nothing approaches the impact of social networking. With the widespread use of Facebook, LinkedIn, and other sites comes a new wave of legal liabilities for both recruiters and screeners. Other emerging technology threats include online diploma fraud, employment mills that manufacture work experience, screen scraping, and more. Employers need to develop best practices and policies in order to successfully manage Web 2.0 technologies.

Join EmployeeScreenIQ’s President and Chief Operating Officer, Jason B. Morris for an informative session about how to protect your company in the age of Facebook. You’ll learn which social networking sites are most popular with recruiters and applicants, and their impact on employment screening and the hiring process. Attendees will also learn how to develop a social media policy and spot the warning signs of diploma and employment mills. Finally, you’ll examine other Web 2.0 trends such as screen scraping and instant screening.

9/1/2011 Arizona State SHRM Conference (Speaking Engagement)

2011-08-15T18:30:45Z

EmployeeScreenIQ’s Jason B. Morris will be speaking at the 2011 Arizona SHRM Conference & Exposition in Chadler, AZ at the Sheraton Wild Horse Pass Resort and Spa on September 1, 2011 at 7:00 am and 5:15pm pst.

Recruiting and Hiring Liabilities: Protecting Your Organization from the Harmful Effects of Web 2.0

The AZSHRM Annual Conference is the largest human resource-focused conference in the state of Arizona. It provides fantastic keynote speakers, great educational sessions, networking opportunities, and exposure to the newest HR products, techniques and services. Open to all HR professionals looking for an affordable, dynamic program that can help you earn re-certification credits. Business owners and managers can learn from top keynote speakers and leading experts nationwide.

8/31/2011 PIHRA Conference & Exhibition (Speaking Engagement)

2011-08-15T18:30:08Z

EmployeeScreenIQ’s Jason B. Morris will be speaking at the 2011 PIHRA Conference & Exposition in Anaheim, CA at the Anaheim Convention Center on August 31, 2011 at 11:15 am pst.

Recruiting and Hiring Liabilities: Protecting Your Organization from the Harmful Effects of Web 2.0

Professionals In Human Resources Association (PIHRA) invites you to be a part of California’s largest gathering of HR professionals – the PIHRA Conference & Exposition. This year’s theme is “California HR Professionals Making Strides for a Better Tomorrow”.

PIHRA implemented the changes you requested by adding more strategic management and California-specific HR Certification Institute credit sessions. Take 5 minutes to learn about the Conference. Come back often for news and updates.

We look forward to seeing you in Anaheim!

7/21/2011 Why Most Employers Shouldn’t Care About New Adverse Action Requirements

2011-08-15T18:33:08Z

Effective July 21, 2011, Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) adverse-action and risk-based pricing notices must disclose any numerical credit score that contributed to the: (1) adverse action; or (2) extension of credit on terms materially less favorable than those available to a substantial portion of customers.

If you are hearing this for the first time, you aren’t alone. And here’s why most of you shouldn’t care.

These rules only apply if you are evaluating a credit score. Remember that employment credit reports (most commonly used on employment background checks) do not include a credit score.

Why are we bothering you with this useless information if it doesn’t affect you? Well, to let you know if you hear about it, that it most likely doesn’t affect you. If you are reviewing credit scores, you might want to read the information below provided by Seyfarth Shaw labor and employment attorney, Pam Devata.

The FCRA requires a person taking adverse action based in whole or in part on a consumer report to provide an adverse-action notice. Section 1100F of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Act) amended Section 615(a) of the FCRA to require users of credit scores to include those scores, and related information, in adverse-action notices provided to consumers. The requirement to disclose credit score information in FCRA adverse-action notices also applies to adverse-action decisions not related to credit.

Consequently, when a user takes any adverse action based in whole or in part on information contained in a consumer report, regardless of the weight of the credit score in the decision, the user must provide the consumer with the following:

* The credit score;

* The range of possible credit scores under the model used;

* All of the key factors that adversely affected the credit score

(not to exceed four factors, unless one factor is the number of inquiries made with respect to the report, in which case the key factors may not exceed five);

* The date on which the credit score was created; and

* The name of the person or entity that provided the credit score.

New Risk-Based Pricing Notice Requirements:

Risk-based pricing refers to the practice of setting or adjusting the price and other terms of credit offered or extended to a particular consumer to reflect the risk of nonpayment by that consumer. The FCRA also requires a creditor to provide a risk-based pricing notice to a consumer when the creditor uses a consumer report in connection with a credit application or review of an existing account and, based on the report, grants credit or amends existing credit on terms that are materially less favorable than the most favorable terms obtained by a substantial portion of consumers. The Federal Reserve Board (the

“Board”) and the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) recently amended their respective risk-based pricing rules to require disclosure of credit scores and information relating to credit scores in risk-based pricing notices if a credit score of the consumer is used in setting or adjusting the material terms of credit.

The Board’s and the FTC’s rules require the same additional information to be included in a risk-based pricing notice as is required for the adverse-action notices. In addition, the risk-based pricing notices must include a prescribed statement explaining credit scores that includes a disclosure that the credit score was used in setting the credit terms. For example, a statement such as:

* “Your credit score is a number that reflects the information in

your credit report. We used your credit score to set the terms of credit we are offering you. Your credit score can change, depending on how your credit history changes.”

The Board’s and the FTC’s rules also recommend that the risk-based pricing notices contain optional contact information for the entity that provided the credit score.

Common Questions:

The new rules raise a lot of questions, many of which are addressed in the commentary to the rules, such as: (1) whether credit score disclosures are required when only the credit score of a guarantor, co-signer, surety, or endorser is used (no disclosure is required); (2) whether there are safe-harbor model notices that can be used (yes there are); and (3) what to do when dealing with proprietary scores, three-party financing transactions, more than one applicant, no credit score, and multiple credit scores (the commentary addresses these questions as well).

Two of the more common questions, however, concern “what is a credit score” and “when is a credit score used.” The commentary makes clear that a score that is not used to predict creditworthiness, such as an insurance score, is not a “credit score” and need not be disclosed. The commentary also makes clear that “use” occurs at a very low threshold and if the credit score played any role in the decision (for example, if the credit score led the user of the credit score to investigate further and the results of that investigation played a role in the decision), then the credit score was used and must be disclosed.

Many of these same questions can also be answered by reviewing the “Forty Years of Experience with the Fair Credit Reporting Act” report that the FTC issued today and is available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2011/07/110720fcrareport.pdf. This report is the most up-to-date FTC guidance on interpreting the FCRA.

7/21/2011 Connecticut Passes Law to Curb Use of Credit Reports

2011-08-15T18:33:50Z

On July 13, 2011, Connecticut governor Daniel P. Malloy signed into law a bill which will prohibit most employers from evaluating a candidate’s credit report as part of the employment screening process. The law is akin to a similarly a passed measure in the state of Maryland earlier this summer in that it carves out a number of exemptions and that it does not allow a private right of action.

According to labor and employment attorney Pam Devata of Seyfarth Shaw, “The Act also provides limited exceptions that allow employers to request or use credit information where a credit report is ‘substantially related to the employee’s current or potential job.’ This exception generally applies to those positions involving money-handling and other confidential job duties. For instance, employers may request credit information for employees in managerial positions that involve the direction and control of the business; employees who have access to financial information; employees with fiduciary duties to the employer; employees who have an expense account or corporate debit or credit card; employees with access to an employer’s nonfinancial assets valued at $2,005 or more (i.e., museum and library collections, prescription drugs, and other pharmaceuticals); and employees with access to confidential or proprietary business information. Notably, where an employer chooses to request credit information pursuant to the substantial purpose exception, it must disclose its intent to do so in writing to the employee or applicant.”

Violators will be subject to $300 fine per incident but will not face a private action from offended parties.

Connecticut now joins a growing list of states that have adopted similar measures including Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland.

Employers note that this law will go into effect on October 1, 2011.

I know that mine might be an unpopular point of view in our industry, but I actually think that recently bills passed in Illinois, Maryland and Connecticut are effective models to curb the misuse of this background screening instrument. While I believe that credit reports are an integral part of the screening process for some, it should not be a requirement for all positions. Quite honestly, it is those that have been misusing these reports for positions where credit really shouldn’t be required that has caused the states to take these actions. I feel like the exemptions that are carved out effectively allow those that should be conducting credit reports do so. I also think that disallowing private action is fair to employers.

There, I’ve been holding that in for about a year. I feel better already. Feel free to rip me and my position now.

7/7/2011 Intelligent integration: ERC and EmployeeScreenIQ Announce Partnership

2011-07-07T18:38:03Z

A top provider of background screening services to a global client base, EmployeeScreenIQ has integrated its systems with Selectech® Hiring Management, the nationally regarded talent acquisition platform from ERC. The result is a simple, functional, time- and cost- saving hiring solution.

A Modest Proposal: Social Network Background Checks Still Concern Me

2011-07-07T15:06:23Z

So there I was on one knee with my hands cuffed behind my back in Little Italy on a beautiful day in May of 1996. Click. Someone took a picture. People started to gather around. More clicks and flashes.

I’ve been thinking a lot about this moment for a few months now since I’ve been contemplating the role social networkings sites should or should not have in the employment background screening and hiring process.

Why? Because this was one of the most important days in my life. It was the day I proposed to my wife. You see, I decided to get creative with my proposal. I always thought it would be fun to have a police officer pull me over with my wife in the passenger seat and then instruct her to take the registration out of the glove compartment. Of course, instead of the registration, she’d find the ring. And that’s exactly what happened. I just didn’t know that the officer (who was a friend of the family) would actually put me in cuffs (that was a little side idea he and my father hatched unbeknownst to me) but it definitely made the moment seem all the more real.

So why am I telling you this story? I had mentioned that a number of people took pictures. Some of those people were members of my family who were lurking around waiting for the big moment. Others were complete strangers that couldn’t believe the spectacle. So far as I know, those pictures were never posted on Facebook. But what if they were and a prospective employer saw them? Would they understand this was a gag? Would they know it wasn’t real? What if they never asked me about it?

What if it was real? Should an employer be able to use that against me?

There’s been a lot of talk for a couple years now about whether employers can and should use social networking sites are part of their employment screening processes. Findings from our annual background screening survey showed that of the nearly 800 respondants, 25% used LinkedIn, 34% used Google, 30% used Facebook and 22% used Twitter to screen candidates. 44% said they would like their screening provider to offer this service in the future. And while I was staunchly against this practice for a long time, I am slowly softening my position. However, it is stories like these that continue to give me reason for pause.

I’m sure we all have a story or two like this. So what do you think? Are social networking sites fair game?

P.S. In spite of the fact that I scared the begeebies out of my wife, she actually said yes (sucker!) and we’ve been married for 14 years.

P.P.S. The guy in the cuffs above is not me. Did you really think I’d post a picture of myself in handcuffs?

7/26/2011 EEOC Hearing Scheduled on Use of Criminal Background Checks

2011-07-05T18:56:16Z

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) will hold a meeting on the use of criminal records foremployment screening purposes on Tuesday, July 26, in Washington, D.C. The National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS), which we are members of, is preparing comments for submittal to the EEOC on the relevance and benefits of access to criminal history records by employers. NAPBS is also partnering with other associations and coalitions as we move toward the July meeting date. This will be a full Commission meeting, meaning all five Commissioners and EEOC’s General Counsels will attend. This includes Chairwoman Jacqueline Berrien, Commissioner Chai Feldblum, Commissioner Stuart Ishimaru, Commissioner Vicky Lipnic and Commissioner Constance Barker. A formal agenda has not yet been released but it is excepted there will be multiple panels including academics, lawyers, victim’s groups (i.e., those who have been denied employment due to their criminal history), government officials, litigants from the El v. Septa case and others.

Given the importance of this meeting to our industry, to our clients and our blog followers, we want to ensure that you are aware of this upcoming meeting and have the opportunity to join in our efforts to ensure that the interests of the providers and users of criminal records are represented.

The role of the use of criminal records in employment screening will be the focus of this meeting and as employers have an important stake in what is being considered during the meeting, we encourage you to add this date to your calendar and make plans to attend the hearing on July 26 if possible. The meeting will be open to the public and it will not be webcast or televised, although a transcript will be available after the meeting.

7/5/2011 Minnesota Government Shutdown Affects Background Check Requests

2011-07-05T14:50:41Z

As you may know by now, the Minnesota government has shutdown due to legislators inability to agree to a new state budget. Unfortunately, those that conduct employment background checks in the state will be adversely affected. The good news is that those who perform criminal record searches at the county level will be able to continue to do so throughout the shutdown. However, state level criminal background checks and Motor Vehicle Record checks cannot be performed until an accord is reached.

For those that conduct state level criminal background checks, perhaps you should consider both county level and national criminal database searches. Unfortunately, there is no replacement for the Motor Vehicle Record check. However if you use EmployeeScreenIQ, we will have access to MVR information through July 1, 2011. It will not include anything that takes place after the 1st.

Stay tuned.

7/4/2011 Independence Day

2011-07-01T17:34:19Z

Please note that all U.S. courts will be closed on Monday, July 4th in observance of Independence Day. Expect a 24 hour delay in all requests leading up to the holiday weekend.

Have a safe and happy 4th of July Holiday!