Welcome to our monthly edition of “What’s hot in employee background screening news”. If you want to become smarter about background screening, you’ve come to the right place. Here are some of the news items that caught our attention last month.
Pre-Employment Criminal Background Checks: Learning from Pepsi’s $3.13 Million Mistake
Pepsi has agreed to pay $3.13 million and provide job offers and training to resolve a charge of race discrimination filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Based on the investigation, the EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that the criminal background check policy formerly used by Pepsi discriminated against African Americans in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Screening Your Background Screener
The employee screening environment is rapidly evolving, making it hard for businesses to keep up. That’s just one reason why businesses are either outsourcing background checks to a partner or are not conducting screenings at all.
For those not conducting pre-employment screening, the case for reconsidering is air tight. If you’re working with an expert partner, it’s important to stay on top of the changing nature of background checks to be sure you’re working with the best partner for your business.
5 Reasons Why Criminal Background Checks Are a Perfect Storm for a Lawsuit
Criminal background checks of job applicants seems to have reached a tipping point as a topic in employment-law circles. So, what are the key components leading to this perfect storm of EEO laws and how can an employer avoid the perfect storm?
Former Domino’s Pizza Employees Allowed to Proceed with Class Action Against Company for Background Check Violations
On January 25, 2012, United States District Court Judge Deborah K. Chasanow denied Defendant Domino’s Pizza’s Motion to Dismiss in Singleton, et al., v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 8:11-cv-01823-DKC (D. Md.).
In a lengthy opinion, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs properly alleged that Domino’s violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by (1) running background checks on employees without proper authorization; and (2) “systematically” failing to provide employees with copies of their background checks prior to taking adverse employment action against them.
Following Deadly Stabbing, Restaurant Could Face Penalty For Hiring A Felon
The killing of a south Charlotte store manager – allegedly by a felon hired to work there – highlights the risks companies take when they hire an employee with a criminal record, or don’t do a full background check on applicants.
No Background Check Done: Bookkeeper Accused of Stealing $1 Million From Archdiocese
When a church worker was hired by the archdiocese in June 2003, it did not perform criminal background checks on prospective employees, as it does now. Church officials were unaware until recently that the bookkeeper had been previously convicted of grand larceny in one case and had pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in another.
Social Media Background Checks : Off-duty Conduct Laws :: Oil : Water
One report suggests that as many as 91% of employers use social networking sites to screen potential employees, with as many as 69% of employers rejecting a candidate because of information discovered on a social site.
Jon Hyman, from Ohio Employer’s Law Blog, has written about some of the risks employers face when conducting background checks on employees via Facebook or other social media sites.
He gives us one more risk to consider: off-duty conduct laws.
29 states have laws that prohibit employers from taking an adverse action against an employee based on their lawful off-duty activities.
Photo credit: JelleS