The state of Washington has had a record year that it hopes not to ever repeat again.  Deaths that resulted from workplace violence instances were at their highest level in decades with 13 on-the-job homicides and 7 suicides.  KPBJ.com reports, “In addition to the slayings last year of six law enforcement offices, others who died as a result of workplace violence included clerks in the retail business, a taxi driver, a musician and an armored car driver. ‘While deaths involving criminal activity may seem particularly hard to avoid, certain measures can reduce the risk that employees will become victims of violence in the workplace,’ said Michael Silverstein, assistant director of the Department’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health.”

Could employment background checks have prevented even a portion of these incidents?  Experts such as Seyfarth Shaw attorney, Mark Lies, Perspectives Ltd. CEO, Bernie Dyme and National Institute for the Prevention of Workplace Violence’s Barry Nixon all suggested in EmployeeScreenIQ’s January Webinar on Workplace Violence that employment screening is one of the major keys to prevention.

Unfortunately, we are seeing more and more incidents of workplace violence around the country.  Since the deep recession has hit, people are more stressed out both at home and at work.  This stress is most certainly manifesting itself in the form of workplace incidents whether physical or mental.

For more information about this topic and suggestions for prevention, check out our recent white paper, “Protecting Your Employees From Workplace Violence”.

Joseph Mannino, a registered nurse who previously served three years in a North Carolina prison on an involuntary manslaughter conviction, was fired from his job at Lehigh Valley Hospital in 2008 for lying about his conviction status on his application for employment.  Time employed before the hospital found out: about three years.

Why did three years go by before his lie was discovered?  I have a better question.  Why didn’t the hospital learn of his conviction when they conducted the background check on him?  Better yet, how was he able to get a nursing license in the state of Pennsylvania?

If you guessed that both his nursing school and employer only conducted statewide criminal checks through the Pennsylvania State Police, you are spot on!

While the PA State Police criminal check may be a good tool to finding records in the state of Pennsylvania (but only as a supplement to a comprehensive countywide criminal search -remember!), it is definitely not a good source for any records maintained beyond its borders.  His school and employer make the argument that he met the two year residency requirement so that is why the statewide search was conducted.  In no way is that a legitimate excuse for not knowing about the conviction!  Convicted felons should not get a pass just because they meet some arbitrary residency requirement.  This is a person who was employed to care for vulnerable people, had access to controlled substances and sensitive personal  information.  The bottom line is that his employer should have been aware of his criminal past prior to making the hiring decision.  Conducting a thorough criminal search in all of the places your applicant has lived and worked (as far back as you can go) is the best way to find out who you are really employing.

Convicted Killer Hired As Nurse

By Bo Koltnow, WFMZ-TV – March 15, 2010

SALISBURY TWP., Pa. — A convicted killer landed a nursing job and years went by before he was outed.  

By all accounts, Joseph Mannino of Palmer Township, Northampton County was a good employee when he worked as a nurse for Lehigh Valley Hospital.

But in 2008, he had his nursing license revoked and was fired for lying on his job application.  

The lie? Not being a convicted felon.  

Lehigh Valley Hospital said it never would have hired Mannino in 2005 if it knew then what it knows now. 

 More

It’s official.  Both the media and the government are turning the screws on employers using credit reports as part of their job candidate background screening process.  Every day, we are seeing more and more state laws introduced to curb the use of credit reports and in the case of a federal bill sponsored by U.S. Rep Steve Cohen (D. Tennessee), HR 3149 an attempt to ban them altogether from the hiring process.

Certainly, there are employers out there who have abused the privilege of reviewing this information.  However, the vast majority of employers who utilize credit reports are doing so legitimately and only when necessary.  SHRM reports that nearly 47% of all employers use them for certain job positions.  I am not the great defender of credit reports, but an all-out ban of them would be disastrous for some employers and their customers.  There are many unintended consequences of making this practice illegal.  It is these consequences that have caused California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to veto a bill introduced to do so not once, but twice.  The governor argued, “This bill would significantly increase businesses’ exposure to civil actions over the use of credit checks. Further, the bill would increase administrative costs to those employers who must legitimately use credit reports as a screening tool by requiring that the employer first abide by its onerous requirements. California employers and businesses have inherent needs to obtain information about applicants for employment. The bill would become a new employer obstacle to the use of available information needed to make hiring decisions.”

The Wall Street Journal published a balanced article in this morning’s paper about this issue which identifies the concerns of job applicants while highlighting the needs of employers to arm themselves with such information. Take a look.

In the meantime, SHRM also published an article this morning that discussed the EEOC plans to address this issue in the next 12-18 months.  They also offered some solid advice from attorney Leslie E. Silverman, partner at Proskauer Rose LLP, in Washington, D.C. for what employers can do to ensure that their practices don’t invite litigation:

“It would be really risky for your company to use a ‘one-size-fits-all’ policy,” Silverman said in a March 3, 2010, Society for Human Resource Management webcast. “A blanket application of credit checks [provides] your company with less of an ability to argue that it is job related,” she said. Silverman advised that HR:

• Be selective on which positions to subject to a credit check.
• Be able to articulate a rational reason on why a credit check is needed for predicting job performance and related to the business functions.
• Ensure that your managers use only the information relevant to the job in question that is needed to make an employment decision. “Avoid making decisions based on extraneous issues if you can avoid it,” Silverman said.
• Allow your candidates to explain the reasons for negative credit information. “This will place you in a better position to assert that the credit information really was job related and consistent with business necessity,” she said.

For the record, most employment attorneys and employment background screeners have been saying this for a long time.

The New York Times published a great article on how social networks are used by National Football League teams in order to perform background checks on players.  In reality the prospect of using these sites to conduct employment background checks in no different than what an ordinary employer considers.  See our recent white paper, Recruiting and Social Networking Sites: What you Know Can Hurt You.

NFL Prospects Have No Privacy on Internet. And Neither May You.

By TONI MONKOVIC

Mike Tanier’s latest Walkthrough column at Football Outsiders takes on the issue of privacy on the Internet, in football and beyond.

Oversharing on social networks can cost N.F.L. prospects big dollars on draft day. But they, like many college seniors, are in a vulnerable position — they’re making the most of their final days of pre-employment responsibility. In other words, they’re having fun, sometimes the kind of fun you don’t tell Mom about. “Most of us are lucky that stage of our lives wasn’t indelibly preserved,” Tanier writes.

Every detail of a prospect’s background is researched by teams and publicized by the media. The scrutiny goes beyond touchdowns and dropped passes, it continues to arrests, scandals, and brief, long-ago suspensions for “undisclosed team violations.” If a player was involved in some non-noteworthy taproom scuffle, we know about it. Type “Jimmy Clausen” into your search engine, and Google helpfully suggests “punch” to steer you toward controversy.

Athletes are far from the only ones who can be hurt:

The days of walking into a job interview with a new suit and a spell-checked resume are long gone. Today’s college graduate cannot expect his or her past to disappear once he or she enters the job market.

More

]]> http://blog.employeescreen.com/2010/03/15/nfl-players-have-no-privacy-facebook-and-background-checks/feed/ 0 http://blog.employeescreen.com/2010/03/15/nfl-players-have-no-privacy-facebook-and-background-checks/ http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Employeescreeniq--Blog/~3/aHF8XbN278o/ http://blog.employeescreen.com/2010/03/15/updated-info-on-ohio-state-univ-workplace-violence-incident/#comments Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:25:45 +0000 Nick Fishman http://blog.employeescreen.com/?p=3181

Earlier today, I wrote a post about the importance verifying a candidate’s date of birth before conducting a background check and used the workplace violence incident that took place at Ohio State as an example of what can go wrong.  I pointed out that the applicant gave an incorrect date of birth and that the University failed to confirm the birth date by looking at his driver’s license.

I have since learned that this is not the case.  I have now been told that it was the court where the conviction occurred who had the record filed under the wrong date of birth.  If this is true then no matter what Ohio State and the background screener did, the background check would have been doomed from the start.  Notwithstanding this information, the information we shared about the importance of confirming date of birth are still just as relevant.

Many employers wonder why they need to provide an applicant’s date of birth in order to perform thorough employment background checks.  This story below, might convince them of the importance of not only providing the date of birth, but also why it is vitally important to verify the given birth date.

By now, many of you have seen the story about the workplace violence incident that took place at The Ohio State University last week which resulted the shooting death of one employee and a serious wound to another.  The first thing everyone asked, and rightfully so: did the university conduct a background check before hiring this employee?  The answer was yes and the background check didn’t reveal the employee’s past conviction where he spent 5 years in prison for receiving stolen property.  The university says that had it known of the record, they never would have hired the individual.

Of course, the media jumped all of the company that performed the background check.  But before you automatically assume that the screening provider botched the check, here’s an important fact to consider and an equally important lesson for employers. It turns out that the employee provided the school with a fraudulent date of birth.

Why is that a problem?

Nearly all courts file criminal records by name and date of birth (some include more information).  In order to conduct a criminal background check, court researchers must search by both the name and date of birth.  If the date of birth is incorrect, the record will not be found.  Originally, both the school and the media seemed to be squarely blaming the background screening company.  However, it appears that the record was missed because Ohio State ran the check using the wrong date of birth.

So hear is the lesson.  Employers must verify an applicant’s date of birth before performing the background check. All you have to do is look at a driver’s license or other government issued ID.  Failing to do so allows the applicant to provide you with fake information which will ultimately derail your efforts to perform thorough employment background checks.  Verifying the date of birth also helps to avoid innocent mistakes or clerical errors. Now, I’m sure my alma mater had the best intentions in mind.  In truth, my guess is that many organizations forget or neglect to do this.  Unfortunately, the results can be deadly.

For more information on what employers can do to combat workplace violence, please download our recent whitepaper, Protecting Your Employees from Workplace Violence.

A U.S. senator is calling for a federal probe into the system of background checks for employees at nuclear plants after learning that a suspected al Qaeda member from New Jersey worked at five such sites.

“We simply cannot tolerate at any time having someone with terrorist ties working at a nuclear plant, period,” Sen. Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, said in a written statement Saturday.

“It seems like common sense, but clearly we need to tighten up the system.”

The FBI said earlier this week that it is investigating Sharif Mobley, a 26-year-old from Buena, New Jersey, as a suspected member of al Qaeda. Mobley also is accused of shooting and killing a security agent and severely injuring another while trying to flee the Republican Hospital in Sanaa, Yemen, last weekend, a law enforcement source said last week.

Mobley’s father said Saturday, “My son is no terrorist.” He would not comment further.

Mobley worked at nuclear plants operated by PSEG Nuclear for different contractors from 2002 to 2008, doing routine labor such as carrying supplies and assisting with maintenance activities, company spokesman Joe Delmar said Thursday.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said it was working with the FBI to determine whether Mobley had access to any sensitive areas of the nuclear plants where he once worked, spokeswoman Holly Harrington said.

“It’s important to note that for him to even be in the plants, he’d have to undergo a background and criminal history check,” she said. She said Mobley worked at five plants between 2002 and 2008 in “labor [and] maintenance kind of positions.”

Schumer said the Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspector general should conduct an “immediate and thorough review” of its procedures for background checks on new and transfer employees. The senator said the monitoring of current employees needs improvement.

He said the current background checks include an examination of criminal and employment histories, a psychological assessment and behavioral observation.

However, “the NRC delegates the authority to complete background checks, which results in a certain degree of disparity in how checks are carried out, and what information is ultimately covered,” Schumer’s statement said.

He said the checks are not required to cover such information as past travel and ties with other countries.

Yemeni counterterrorism forces rushed to the scene and captured Mobley, who had barricaded himself in a hospital room, said Mohammed Albasha, a spokesman for the Yemeni Embassy in Washington, on Thursday.

Mobley remains detained in Yemen after the incident at the hospital.

Yemeni authorities detained him and 10 other al Qaeda suspects this month in a “successful security sweep” in Sanaa, the capital, Albasha said. Mobley had been transported to the hospital over the weekend for medical treatment, Albasha said. He would not elaborate.

More

Widespread marketing and misrepresentation have resulted in a glut of phony degrees, and you should check any alleged accreditation against the US Department of Education Database. Sometimes though, it is not only the phony college who benefits, as the list below will reveal.

Craig and Alton Poe formed the Trinity Southern University (TSU) in January 2004 and offered “degrees” in a variety of subjects for a fee between $299 and $499. They hacked into 60 Pennsylvania businesses to distribute over 18.000 spam emails advertising the scam. Using a bogus résumé for the deputy attorney general´s cat, investigators were able to acquire an MBA degree for “Colby” with a 3.5 grade point average. In March 2005 the brothers were fined a total of $131.000 for their fraudulent actions.

Trenda Halton of Peoria, Arizona defrauded the government of nearly $540.000 by recruiting 136 people to pose as students and enrolling at the Rio Salado College in Tempe over a 15 month period from July 2006. By having her recruits participate in online “classes”, Ms Halton received federal student loans and Pell Grant money. The scam came to light when handwriting on application forms was found to be similar, and Halton, plus 23 other defendants, have now been ordered to repay $793.073.

More

Colleges and Universities in the United States have been performing lax background checks for years.  We have written time and again about our nations schools and their reluctance to conduct searches properly.  A College or University is no different than any company and some could argue their responsibilities to vet them is even greater.  In our latest story at The Ohio State University a janitor opened fire on his co-workers, it could just have easily been a student! What do we know about this janitors responsibilities? Did he have master keys to student dorms? What if he was a rapist? I ask these questions because organizations sometimes fail to conduct a proper background check because that person is “just a janitor” or “just a clerk”, what harm could they cause?  Remember Nan Toder? Nan was raped and killed in her hotel room by “just a maintenance manager”.   Having unfettered access is like having keys to the kingdom!

In our most recent example, Nataniel Brown, showed extreme signs of violence at his last job.  Before that, Amy Bishop, the University of Alabama shooter had a similar work history.  Although there is now silver bullet a simple reference check or employment verification may have disqualified them from employment.

Recently our workplace violence white paper has received a lot of publicity, I wish it wasn’t ever a story.  We don’t like to see  people hurt and/or killed!  However, we wouldn’t need the white paper if organizations vetted their employees properly.  Perhaps a review of our Employment Screening 101 series is prudent at this time for those looking to review their current policies.

Our wish is simple, please don’t make us write about workplace violence again! Listen to our advice, do things properly, protect your employees and our children!

I am a little late to the game with this one as I have been attending the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS) Conference in San Antonio, Texas.  Workplace violence issues have been on the rise in 2009 and 2010.  In the last two months alone, we have had two involving college campuses in the United States.  Of course being from Ohio this one hits closer to home than any of them.  It appears Nathaniel Brown opened fire on some of his co-workers the other day at The Ohio State University.  Brown had a poor performance review which lead to him shoot two supervisors killing one, then himself.

Records also show Brown served about five years in prison on a charge of receiving stolen property. He lied about his criminal history on his job application, and it wasn’t clear whether Ohio State had completed a background check.

According to other reports he was a threat at his last job as well.  Background checks are important for 100% of your staff.  Not only does it create a workplace filled with qualified employees, it protects them!  There is no silver bullet that will prevent workplace violence (see our white paper from last month), but in this case I believe a quality background check would have prevented this!  If his past conviction didn’t disqualify him, his obvious recklessness at his past employer might have! A simple check of his past references could have saved lives!

Former Co-Worker Says OSU Gunman Threatened Him

COLUMBUS, Ohio — While Nathaniel Brown’s neighbors said they never imagined he was capable of opening fire on his co-workers, a man who used to work with him at a Columbus car dealership said otherwise on Tuesday.

The man, who asked not to be identified, said he feared Brown would do something violent years earlier, 10TV’s Kevin Landers reported.

“He was the type of person that everyone in our dealership tried to stay away from,” the man said.

He said Brown threatened to kill him and two others at the dealership before he was let go in 2004.

On Tuesday, after Brown was identified as the gunman who shot two employees at Ohio State, his former co-worker said he was not surprised.

“When I heard Nathaniel Brown, I looked over to my mother and said, ‘He’s finally killed someone,’” he said.

Records obtained by 10TV showed that Brown was sentenced to prison from 1979 to 1984 for receiving stolen property. He was hired as a custodian at Ohio State in October 2009.

It was not clear if Ohio State was required to conduct a criminal background check on Brown, but on his application for employment, Brown checked a box that said he had never been convicted of a felony, Landers reported.

More