ORDER A REPORT
SECURE FILE UPLOAD

Compliance Corder covers articles related to employment decisions due diligence.

U.K. Bribery Act now slated to take effect July 1, 2011

After receiving widespread criticism for the lack of guidance and compliance clarification, the U.K. Bribery Act of 2010 (Bribery Act) originally scheduled for implementation in April 2011, is now set to take effect July 1, 2011. The act’s jurisdiction extends to commercial organizations incorporated or formed in the U.K. or “which carr

[y] on a business or a part of a business in the U.K. irrespective of the place of incorporation or formation.” Determination of such existence will be made by the U.K. courts and will require “a demonstrable business presence.” The official guide states that an organization will not be deemed to be carrying on a business in the U.K. merely by virtue of having its securities listed on the London Stock Exchange or by having a U.K. subsidiary.

Unlike the anti-bribery provisions of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), which focus primarily on corruption involving non-U.S. government officials, the Bribery Act  widens its scope to prohibit domestic and international bribery across both private and public sectors. And while the FCPA allows exceptions for facilitation payments (generally small payments to lower-level officials for “routine government actions,”) the Bribery Act does not. These payments were illegal under the previous legislation and the common law, but the difference under the Bribery Act is that non-U.K. organizations are broadly subjected to these restrictions for the first time.

The Bribery Act specifically criminalizes the offering, promising or giving a bribe (active bribery) and the requesting, agreeing to receive or accepting a bribe (passive bribery) to obtain or retain business or secure a financial or other advantage. It also contains a provision whereby an organization that fails to prevent bribery by anyone associated with the organization can be charged under the Bribery Act unless it can establish the defense of having implemented preventive “adequate procedures.” The official guide recommends the following six principles as foundation for developing “adequate procedures” to prevent bribery:

  • Proportionality – Actions should be proportionate to the risk, nature, size and complexity of the organization.
  • Top-level Commitment – Board of directors, owners, officers or equivalent top level- management should establish and promote a culture where bribery is never acceptable and be committed to preventing bribery, both within the organization and with anyone associated with the organization externally.
  • Risk Assessment – Various risk exposures, both internal and external, such as country of operation, business sector, types of transaction, new markets, and business partnerships should be evaluated and documented on an ongoing basis.
  • Due Diligence – Proportionate, risk-based approach to due diligence procedures assessing existing and proposed relationships should be taken to ensure trustworthy associations and mitigate identified bribery risks.
  • Communication – Appropriate channels of communication, awareness and training, both internal and external, on anti-bribery policies and procedures should be implemented and evaluated on a regular basis.
  • Monitoring and Review – Anti-bribery policies and procedures should be monitored on an ongoing basis and amended as quickly as possible when activities and risks change.

The penalties for violating the Bribery Act are severe, with individuals facing up to 10 years in prison and organizations facing unlimited fines. Violations also may result in damaging collateral consequences such as director disqualification, ineligibility for public contracts, and asset confiscation.

 

May 9th, 2011|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , , |

Maryland resident charged with making false statements on federal job applications

The Department of Justice reported yesterday that Karen M. Lancaster, of Upper Marlboro, MD, has been charged with four counts of making false statements, three counts of submitting false documents and one count of engaging in a concealment scheme in connection with her multiple job applications to U.S. federal government agencies.

According to the indictment, Lancaster was employed in various positions with the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) from 1991 until March 2005. She subsequently was notified by DoD that she was being fired due to performance failures. In October 2006, according to the indictment, Lancaster reached a settlement with DoD whereby she was allowed to resign, retroactive to March 2005.

Between 2006 and 2008, Lancaster applied for jobs at the U.S. Departments of State, Commerce and Defense, as well as with the SEC. The indictment states that as part of the application processes, Lancaster allegedly submitted documents that falsified and concealed information about her criminal history, employment history and suitability for employment with the federal government. Specifically, Lancaster allegedly concealed and falsified informatabout her prior arrests, charges, convictions and prison terms, the unfavorable circumstances under which she had resigned from prior federal employment, the roles and responsibilities she had at previous federal jobs; and her salary history.Lancaster will be arraigned on March 25, 2011, in U.S. District Court in Alexandria. The maximum penalty for each count of making a false statement, submitting a false document and engaging in a concealment scheme is five years in prison. Lancaster also faces a maximum fine of $250,000 per count.

The Department of Justice notes that an indictment is merely an accusation, and a defendant is presumed innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law.

March 17th, 2011|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , |

Fraudulent credentials rampant in China

Media sources report that scholars in China say that fraud in education and scientific research, and faking credentials to get work or advance in careers is staggering. With frequent news of falsified resumes by prominent officials and company heads, employers in the country have adopted stricter background checks of job candidates.

According to news reports, Fang Zhouzi, known for exposing plagiarism and academic fraud in China, said that Tang Jun, who was president of Microsoft’s China operations from 2002 to 2004, had falsely claimed in his autobiography that he earned a doctorate degree from the California Institute of Technology, when in fact, the degree was bought from California-based Pacific Western University, known as a “diploma mill.” The scandal was later dubbed the “fake credentials gate” by Chinese media.

Several media publications also brought up the case of Zhang Wuben, who through television shows, DVDs and a best-selling book, convinced millions of people that raw eggplant and immense quantities of mung beans could cure lupus, diabetes, depression and cancer. Zhung’s patient consultations, for which he charged $450 for ten minutes, were booked solid through 2012. But when Chinese journalists dug deeper into Zhung’s background, they learned that contrary to his claims, Zhung was not from a long line of doctors (his father was a weaver) nor did he earn a degree from Beijing Medical University. His only formal education was a correspondence course that he took after losing his job at a textile mill.

The exposure of Zhang’s fake credentials gained media focus and started a new round of scrutiny into the dishonest practices that plague Chinese society, and the Chinese government has vowed to address the problem. To facilitate employers’ checks of their job candidates, the China’s Ministry of Education released a list of approved Chinese-foreign jointly-run schools and a list of overseas colleges. And employers now have a greater awareness of the value of background investigations. Zhu Shibo, manager of recruitment at the China International Intellectech Corporation, one of the country’s leading human resources service providers, told media sources that the company has received unprecedented commissions to investigate job applicants. A typical background investigation includes highest education verification, employment experience confirmation and criminal record searches.

February 8th, 2011|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , |

Beware of background investigation companies that offer FBI NCIC checks

All you need to do is type in a few key words into Google and headlines pop up promising easy access to FBI criminal records. But when you click on the link, it goes nowhere or to a background screening company’s Web site which then states that it searches public records only, and makes no further mention of the teasing lead.

And except for a few non-government entities, such ones performing authorized criminal justice functions under contract with law enforcement agencies, entities whose purpose is to provide information to authorized agencies to facilitate the apprehension of fugitives or locate missing persons and stolen property, or similar objectives, and federally chartered banking institutions, their bank subsidiaries and direct affiliates, the records are off-limits to the public. Of course, an individual can request his/her own record, typically for a personal review, to challenge the information on file, to meet a requirement for adopting a child in the U.S. or internationally, to satisfy a mandate to live, work, or travel in a foreign country, or to obtain certain professional licenses.

So exactly what is the FBI’s National Crime Information Center? The NCIC, as it is commonly known, is the United States’ central database for tracking crime related information. Maintained by the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division, the NCIC is interlinked with similar systems held by each state. Data is received from federal, state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies, along with railroad police, and non-law enforcement agencies, such as state and federal motor vehicle registration and licensing authorities.

The NCIC was launched January 27, 1967 with five files and 356,784 records. By the end of 2009, it amassed more than 15 million active records in 19 files, separated into seven property files containing records of stolen articles, boats, guns, license plates, parts, securities, and vehicles, and 12 person-related files containing information in connection with supervised releases, national sex offender registry, foreign fugitives, immigration violators, missing persons, protection orders, unidentified persons, U.S. Secret Service protective list, gangs, known or suspected terrorists, wanted persons, and identity theft. Also a part of the system is the Interstate Identification Index, which provides images that can be associated with NCIC records to help identify people and property items.

The database is not infallible. Its many critics say that the underfunded system is limited in content, contains errors and has outdated information. But the black market for NCIC records is flourishing, despite risks of prison time and financial penalties. While in most instances the motivation for misuse is monetary gain, in an extreme example of personal incentive, a former law enforcement officer in Arizona obtained NCIC information from three other officers and used it to track down and murder his girlfriend.

January 26th, 2011|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , |

More on legal troubles from employer misuse of social media information

Legal experts say that litigation resulting from employer misuse of social media information is likely to rise, at least until more case law is established. And even if the company prevails in such lawsuits, there may be reputational risks as the cases grab national spotlight.

Media sources reported that next week, for example, a National Labor Relations Board judge will rule whether American Medical Response of Connecticut illegally fired a worker after she criticized her boss on
Facebook. In what labor officials and lawyers view as a ground-breaking case involving employees and social media, the NLRB stepped in to argue that workers’ criticisms of their supervisors or companies on social networking sites are generally a protected activity and
that employers are violating the law by punishing workers for such statements. According to media reports, American Medical denied the board’s allegations, stating they are without merit, and that “the
employee was discharged based on multiple, serious complaints about her behavior.” The company added that “the employee was also held accountable for negative personal attacks against a coworker posted publicly on Facebook…”

Media sources reported on another pending case, filed in Georgia against a school district, a former high school teacher is claiming that she was essentially forced to resign over Facebook photos that
showed her drinking alcohol during a European vacation.

And in a case settled in 2009, two workers in New Jersey sued their employer, Hillstone Restaurant Group, after they were fired for violating the company’s core values. According to court documents, their supervisors gained access to postings on a password-protected
Myspace page meant for employees but not managers. The jury found that the employer violated the federal Stored Communications Act and the equivalent New Jersey law, and awarded the employees $3,403 in back pay and $13,600 in punitive damages. Hillstone appealed before the parties reached an undisclosed settlement.

Labor relations pros caution that before taking any adverse action based on social media postings, the employer should consider whether the information could be construed as a complaint or report of inappropriate or unlawful behavior. This includes, but is not limited
to discrimination, harassment, unpaid overtime and other wage violations, or any activities that may trigger an employee’s whistleblower protection.

January 23rd, 2011|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , |

Lawsuit shows legal risks in using information from social media

Media sources reported that a settlement was reached January 18, 2011 in a civil rights case re C. Martin Gaskell v. University of Kentucky, whereby the University agreed to pay Gaskell and his attorneys $125,000. Gaskell was a leading candidate in 2007 to be the director of a new observatory at the University of Kentucky; however, he was denied employment allegedly in part because of his apparent views on evolution. Media reports and court documents stated that during the candidate selection process, committee members conducted searches on Gaskell on the Internet, and discovered his personal Web which contained an article entitled “Modern Astronomy, the Bible, and Creation” among other notes. The sources also reported that “Gaskell had given lectures to campus religious groups around the country in which he said that while he has no problem reconciling the Bible with the theory of evolution, he believes the theory has major flaws. He recommended students read … critics

[of evolution] in the intelligent-design movement.”

According to the Courier-Journal, the University “acknowledged that concern over Gaskell’s views on evolution played a role in the decision to choose another candidate.” But it argued that this was a valid scientific concern, particularly with regard to the prospect that “Gaskell’s views on evolution would interfere with his ability to serve effectively as director of the observatory. And there were other  factors, including a poor review from a previous supervisor and UK faculty views that he was a poor listener.”

January 19th, 2011|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , |

Scraped information for sale to employers

Employers legally can’t discriminate based on gender, race and other factors which they may get from social-media profiles, but some indeed are using such data in their employment decisions. Media sources reported that scraping for employment purposes is growing, and that an employment screening company in Florida began offering limited social-networking data, including some that is scraped, about a year ago. Scrapers operate in a legal gray area. Internationally, anti-scraping laws vary, and in the U.S., court rulings have been contradictory. Media reports quoted Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University saying: “Scraping is ubiquitous, but questionable. Everyone does it, but it’s not totally clear that anyone is allowed to do it without permission.”

December 23rd, 2010|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , |

Social Security number (SSN) randomization to take effect in June 2011

The Social Security Administration (SSA) describes the SSN randomization as a forward-looking project to help protect the integrity of the Social Security number by establishing a new random assignment methodology. The SSA promises to still provide online services for direct SSN verifications, as follows:

  • SSA’s Social Security Number Verification Service – available to employers.
  • Department of Homeland Security’s eVerify Service – available to employers to determine employment eligibility.
  • SSA’s Consent-Based SSN Verification Service – available to enrolled private companies and government agencies for a fee.

Federal and state agencies will continue to maintain several SSN verification
systems, as outlined at http://www.ssa.gov/gix/eprojects.html.

December 21st, 2010|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , |

No background check was done on Michael Jackson’s doctor

Media sources reported that among several wrongful death lawsuits filed by the Jackson family, is a September 2010 action against event production company AEG Live and others alleging that they are responsible for the singer’s death because his “This Is It” tour contract with AEG created a legal duty to keep him healthy.

In its complaint, among other causes, the Jackson family accuses AEG of “negligent hiring” and retention of Dr. Conrad Murray to care for Jackson instead of his usual doctor. Earlier this year, prosecutors charged Murray with involuntary manslaughter, to which he pleaded not guilty. The doctor is accused of administering the drug Propofol to Jackson without the necessary resuscitation equipment or nursing support, and subsequently causing his death. The ‘Negligent Hiring’ cause of action in the complaint filed in Los Angeles County states:

“In undertaking to hire Murray, AEG performed absolutely no diligence in investigating or checking into Murray’s background, specialties, ability, or even whether he was insured, which it had a duty to do. In choosing to hire and employ a physician to treat Jackson, AEG undertook to act, and it needed to do so reasonably. AEG did not act reasonably and breached its duty.”

“During the course of Murray’s treatment, it became clear to AEG that Jackson was not doing well at all. AEG did nothing to terminate Murray and instead negligently retained him as an employee, and in so doing violated its duty of care. AEG insisted that Jackson continue treatment with Murray and receive no treatment from other physicians, a further breach of its duty of supervision.”

Along with negligent hiring, training and supervision, the complaint calls for unspecified damages for breach of contract, fraud, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. And in the most recent case filed November 30, 2010 in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Joe Jackson is also claiming negligent hiring, training and supervision and negligence by the Murray-affiliated clinics and negligence against the pharmacy (and Murray.) A similar suit filed this past June did not include the pharmacy, and was dismissed.

Shortly after Michael Jackson’s death, ABC News reported that Murray was arrested on domestic violence charges in 1994 after an incident with his then-girlfriend. The doctor was tried and acquitted. When a company fails to conduct a background check, the employer can be held legally liable for a worker, independent contractor or volunteer who causes injury to a customer, co-worker or the general public. Whether the individual was acting within the capacity of the job for which he/she was hired does not matter. The legal theory is that even if an employer did not possess direct knowledge of the liability posed by an employee, the company is legally responsible because the employer should have known about the threat presented by the individual. Currently, fewer than 50% of the states uphold the doctrine of negligent hiring, and the criteria for determining negligent hiring differ from state to state.

December 8th, 2010|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , |

More on credit reports for hiring decisions

According to September 2010 congressional testimony by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), credit checks are a useful tool to “assess the skills, abilities, work habits and integrity of potential hires.” However, SHRM states that only 20 percent of employers conduct credit checks on all applicants. Fifty-seven percent of these employers perform the checks only after contingent offers, and 30 percent after job interviews; 65 percent allow job candidates to explain their credit results before the hiring decision is made, and 22 percent accept explanations after the hiring decision.

A bill in the U.S. House, called the Equal Employment for All Act, would amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to ban the use of credit checks on prospective and current employees for employment purposes, with the following exceptions:

  • jobs that require national security or Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. clearance;
  • jobs in state or local government that require the use of credit reports;
  • supervisory, managerial, and executive positions in financial institutions.

The states of Illinois, Oregon, Hawaii, and Washington already have passed laws to prevent employers from using credit reports in employment decisions.

November 30th, 2010|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , , |
© 2012- SCHERZER INTERNATIONAL | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Go to Top