Fired Due To Error In Background Check, Carroll Woman Still Jobless

Eschol Amelia Studnitz lost her $58,000 accounting job July 31 because a government background check deemed her “unsuitable” for a low-level security clearance. She was stunned. She had no criminal record.

“I kept thinking, ‘What could I have done?’ ” said the 59-year-old Carroll County resident, who goes by the name Amy.

Her shock was warranted: Her firing was based on a mistake. And within days, her employer, Corporate Mailing Services of Arbutus, heard from the Social Security Administration that she could, in fact, work on a new contract handling mail for the agency.

But three bewildering months after her dismissal, Studnitz has not been rehired or found other work in this tight job market. A single woman who’s relying on her $405 weekly unemployment checks, she says she is behind on the mortgage for her Manchester home and has a shut-off notice from Baltimore Gas and Electric Co.

“I’m in a jam, a real jam,” she said, “and I didn’t do this to myself.” She wants to regain the job she landed in April 2008, but the company now says it won’t rehire her due to supposed performance shortfalls. She would like to sue the government for thousands of dollars of lost income, but could face long odds.

More

There are some very serious issues our industry is dealing with today.  For starters, Barney Frank (D-Mass) has introduced H.R. 3126 which will create the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA).  NAPBS was successful in getting Consumer Reporting Agencies (CRA’s) excluded from this agency, however, we have now been put back in.  Being regulated under two agencies (The FTC and CFPA) would severely impact our industry and employers across the US.

Secondly, NAPBS is working hard to launch our Accreditation program in the next six months.  Currently in beta test the program will raise the bar in our industry and show law makers we are serious about doing things properly.  As a former Co-Chairman and current member of the Background Screening Credentialing Council (BSCC) I couldn’t be more excited about the launch.

I had the pleasure of sitting in on many exciting education sessions along with meeting some great people.  NAPBS continues to shine as the premier background screening association!  Looking forward to our annual conference in San Antonio in March 2010.

Further, all employers that conduct background checks are supposed to have a policy in place to handle “Red Flag” Address Discrepancy Notifications from the National Consumer Reporting Agencies (mainly credit bureaus). This rule has been in effect since last November and we are still unclear what such notifications will look like when and if they occur.

For more information on these guidelines and how to comply check out:

Users of Consumer Reports Have New Responsibilities as of November 1
EmployeeScreenIQ Offers Free Webinar on New FTC Guidelines

Want a Job In Akron? Hand Over Your DNA

University spokesperson Laura Massie said that they have not collected any samples as of yet.  They are just reserving the right to do so in the future.  The reason for the policy is that the university believes that eventually, DNA samples will be used to conduct background checks.  My response: don’t hold your breath.  Someday, people will also vacation on the moon, but it’s not happening anytime in the near future.

Critics say that this policy violates the soon to be enforced Genetic Information Non Discrimination Act (GINA).  This criticism makes sense.  What’s to stop the school from analyzing DNA of job applicants to see if they are predisposed to cancer or alcoholism or to growing a third eye?

I love the fact that the school is serious about demonstrating the importance of employment background checks, but suggest that they cross this bridge when they come to it (if it ever comes).

Massie responded to CBS after the article had been written.  In her email she states,  “the three most important points are these: First, General Counsel Ted Mallo believes that “GINA deals with gathering DNA for health insurance purposes” so genetic testing for background checks is permissible. Second, the school has not yet figured out how it will actually do DNA background tests. Third, the reason for the policy is: “DNA testing was included in the policy because there have been national discussions that indicate that in the future, reliance on fingerprinting will diminish and DNA for criminal identification will be the more prominent technology. By including it in the policy we have the flexibility to match the technology if the Ohio State Highway Patrol makes changes to its system.”

University of Akron law professor William Rich told CBS, “The Faculty Senate was not consulted about this policy. It wasn’t until just now that I became aware of it. Having now read the policy, I think it goes far beyond any imaginable justification for requiring DNA samples from job applicants, and I wonder just what the rationale for it was. The university does employ police officers who have law-enforcement authority under Ohio law and agreements with local police departments. I can imagine that there might be a justification for requiring prospective UA police officers to submit DNA samples (although I’d still like to know more about the rationale for that), but a university regulation that allows the University administration complete discretion to require DNA samples from any job applicant strikes me as way too broad.”

If nothing else, this will create more buzz for the University of Akron than if the Zips won the NCAA Football National Championship (well, maybe not that).  Maybe that was the point in the first place.

Check out our interview with Kevin below.

Not sure if you saw this, but a Newark airport security guard was arrested for threatening to shoot President Barack Obama a day before he was supposed to fly into the that airport.  The New Jersey state police  licensed this individual and the company who hired him claimed that he passed their background check.  Let’s give both the state and the company the benefit of the doubt and say that this person was really never convicted of a crime.  Can the state or the employer be held accountable?  In my opinion, no.  They performed proper due diligence.  Remember, the lack of negative information can’t guarantee that the person will never pose a risk.  It just says that at the time you ran the background check, there was no adverse information.  Ordinarily, this is a pretty reliable indicator for the future, but not a guarantee.

See Newsday Article

Obama Threat Suspect Had Passed Background Checks

A security guard charged in a shooting threat against President Barack Obama had cleared extensive state and federal background checks, the Port Authority said Friday.

Screening for security guards is under the spotlight after an unarmed Newark Liberty International Airport guard, John Brek, 55, of Linden, N.J., was charged with three state felony counts after he was allegedly overheard making comments while on a coffee break a day before Obama was due to fly into the airport. Brek, a six-year employee of Floral Park-based FJC Security Services, has pleaded not guilty. One charge against Brek is for knowingly receiving a stolen rifle.

New Jersey State Police licensed Brek as a security guard after he met the required criminal-background checks, the Port Authority, which has a contract with FJC, said Friday. Brek also received authority clearance to work at Newark Liberty after he cleared its required FBI and 10-year background screening, an authority official said.

But a former police officer and chief executive of a national securities firm said such screenings aren’t always enough to weed out bad seeds. Michael Evans, chief executive of security firm USPA Nationwide, said a psychological evaluation also should have been required.

“I can see how it happened,” Evans said. “People put their best foot forward in their job interview.”

Psychological evaluation isn’t required under New Jersey state security guard licensing requirements, however. Prosecutors are seeking a psychiatric evaluation as part of their case against Brek.

Evans said contractors should require private security firms to perform psychological tests on employees. “It’s very hard to know what people are actually thinking,” he said.

More

Listen to Radio Show

If you weren’t around all week, no worries.  Here’s a recap of this week’s highlights.

• On Monday, we posted EmployeeScreenIQ’s most recent white paper, Smoke Mirrors and Resumes: The Growing Threat of Diploma Mills.  We also posted a radio show where Jason Morris and I introduced ourselves to the Recruiter Earth members and talked about the week ahead.
• Tuesday we introduced the Recruiter Earth community through videos of some of our team members who shared their passion about the company and employment background checks.
• Wednesday was highlighted by a radio show featuring iCIMS’ Caitrin O’Sullivan and myself discussing how our companies are poised to help our clients through a rapid recovery.
• On Thursday, we were proud to post another radio show with one of our valued clients, Dawn Murphy of Continental Airlines.  Dawn shared why background checks were so vital to her organization.

Also, don’t forget that it’s not too late to win an Amazon Kindle.  Just tell us why background checks are important to your organization.  The best respond wins!

So there you have it.  It has been a great week and I want to thank Chris LaVoie, Jim Shaki and all of the folks over at Recruiter Earth.  They have been tremendous hosts.

Sorry for the quick post.  Gotta go grab my Continental flight.  (No really, I’m going to miss my flight. Somebody remind me why I decided to take a 5:15 flight this morning.)

Listen to radio show.

Listen here.

Also, don’t forget that we are giving away a free Amazon Kindle to the person that provides the best response to the why background checks are important to their organization.

Schools Told of Teacher Arrests

System scours daily offenders for educators

Educators don’t need to alert their school districts when they get arrested. The districts already know.

A new computer system links a list of licensed educators — teachers, coaches, counselors, nurses, aides and tutors — to a statewide list of arrests each night. It then sends automatic notifications to the Ohio Department of Education.

A worker at the department then e-mails the districts where the arrested educators work to let school officials know they should follow up with law-enforcement authorities.

Since the system began operating in mid-August, the department has received 36 arrest reports for educators in 33 school districts. Most arrests were for infractions such as traffic offenses or driving under the influence, said Jim Miller, who oversees licensure and educator discipline for the Education Department.

The most serious arrest that Miller could recall was for domestic violence.