Scherzer Blog

What’s wrong with using information from Facebook, MySpace, Friendster or personal Web sites for hiring decisions?

Some companies believe this is a cheap way to obtain information about an applicant. Unfortunately for the applicant, this type of background check is not covered by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) if it is performed by the employer. And since the sites are not mandated to investigate and correct errors, the employer may miss out on hiring a qualified candidate. Additionally, much of the information posted on these sites cannot be discussed in an interview, and if not handled properly, the employer may be sued for claims under various anti-discrimination statutes, ADA, privacy laws, and state “off-duty” conduct statutes. Employers who use third-parties to conduct background investigations by searching social Web sites and Internet postings must comply with the FCRA, and thus explicitly state in the background check authorization that social networking and/or other such sites will be accessed. The FCRA does not prohibit employers from obtaining consumer reports that contain information compiled from Internet sites; however, employers are required to disclose to the applicant that the information was the basis of an adverse employment decision (Id. § 1681b(b)(3)(B)(i)(I).

Despite the liability exposure and unreliability of the information, various surveys show that employers do use information from social networking sites and blogs to support their decision to hire or disqualify an applicant. The most common causes for disqualification include:

Information or photographs about drinking or using drugs
Provocative or inappropriate photographs or information
Poor communication skills evident in postings
Bad-mouthing previous employer or fellow employee
Misrepresentation of qualifications
Discriminatory remarks related to race, gender, religion, etc.
Unprofessional or provocative screen name
Indications of criminal behavior
Posted confidential information from previous employers

July 1st, 2010|Educational Series, Employment Decisions|

Update on Senate Bill 1045 (OL 2010. Ch. 102) which amends Oregon Revised Statute 659A.885 that restricts employer’s use of credit history in employment decisions

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries published its final administrative rules regarding Senate Bill 1045 (OL 2010. Ch. 102). The regulations go into effect July 1, 2010. The Oregon Revised Statute 659A.885 specifically prohibits an employer from obtaining or using credit history for employment purposes of an applicant or employee unless that credit history information is “substantially job-related, and the employer’s reasons for the use of such information are disclosed to the employee or prospective employee in writing.” The state of Oregon set up a hotline (at 971-673-0824) to explain the new regulations. The regulations can also be viewed online at http://www.oregon.gov/BOLI/LEGAL/docs/RulesSoS0052010.pdf

July 1st, 2010|Educational Series, Employment Decisions, Legislation|

What laws require or influence background screening of volunteers?

Whether a volunteer is required by law to submit to a background check depends on the type of organization for which the volunteer work is performed. Several state and federal laws regulate health and public safety organizations, some of which require screening of both employees and volunteers. There are also other laws that provide protection to at-risk populations, especially children. One such law allows the public to access information about convicted sex offenders. For more information and a link to state sex offender registries, see the U.S. Department of Justice’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section at http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ceos/index.html.

The laws that facilitate an organization’s screening of volunteers are the Volunteers for Children Act of 1998 (VCA) Public Law 105-251, which amended the National Child Protection Act of 1993 (NCPA), 42 USC § 5119(a) a.k.a. “Oprah’s Law” allowing volunteer organizations to access federal criminal records, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 USC §1681, if a background check is performed by a third-party background screening firm.

June 30th, 2010|Educational Series, Legislation|

The Work Number Employment Data Report

The Work Number Employment Data Report is limited to employment information, such as the name of employer, dates, position title and salary. The Work Number, which contains information from participating employers, is an employment and income verification service, not a background screening service. It is operated by TALX Corporation, which is owned by the credit reporting agency Equifax.

The Work Number will provide to the subject one free Employment Data Report every 12 months. The report can be obtained by calling TALX at (866) 604-6570 or going to http://www.theworknumber.com/Employees/datareport.asp.

June 30th, 2010|Educational Series|

What are “specialty consumer reports?”

“Specialty consumer reports” are compiled by specialty consumer agencies for targeted users such as insurance companies, employers, and landlords. The agencies collect information from a variety of sources and may include civil and criminal records, credit history, bankruptcy filings, driving records, business relationship information with banks or insurance companies, and even medical information.

Most consumers are unaware of the existence of a “specialty consumer report” unless they have been denied a job, insurance, or housing rental. The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) imposes certain obligations on the specialty reporting agencies, the users of such reports, and those that furnish information for the reports. (See http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/credit/bus33.shtm for more information.) When adverse action is taken based on the information in the report, the FCRA mandates that users of specialty consumer reports provide to the subject an “adverse action notice” along with a free copy of the report. The subject also has the right to dispute inaccurate information.

June 30th, 2010|Bankruptcy, Educational Series|

Searching for violators of the Social Security Act for program-related fraud and patient abuse?

Try the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services – Office of Inspector General Web site (http://oig.hhs.gov/.)

For many years the Congress of the United States has worked diligently to protect the health and welfare of the nation’s elderly and poor by implementing legislation to prevent certain individuals and businesses from participating in federally-funded health care programs. The OIG, under this congressional mandate, established a program to exclude individuals and entities affected by the various legal authorities, contained in sections 1128 and 1156 of the Social Security Act, and maintains a list of all currently excluded parties called the List of Excluded Individuals/Entities, at http://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/exclusions.asp. Basis for exclusion include convictions for program-related fraud and patient abuse, licensing board actions and default on Health Education Assistance Loans.

June 28th, 2010|Educational Series, Legislation|

Disciplinary actions filed by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB)

The PCAOB Web site now maintains records of disciplinary and settlement orders of registered firms and/or their associated persons for violations of any provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, professional standards, rules of the PCAOB or the SEC, or U.S. securities laws relating to the preparation and issuance of audit reports. These records date back to 2005 and can be found at http://pcaobus.org/Enforcement/Decisions/Pages/default.aspx.

As required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, contested Board disciplinary proceedings are confidential and nonpublic, unless and until there is a final decision imposing sanctions. The PCAOB Web site also contains a section for orders granting petitions to terminate bars, at http://pcaobus.org/Enforcement/Petitions/Pages/default.aspx.

June 28th, 2010|Educational Series|

Resumes That Can Kill: Fraudulent Credentials a Growing Threat, Says Scherzer International

http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Resumes-That-Can-Kill-Fraudulent-Credentials-Growing-Threat-Says-Scherzer-International-1159501.htm

May 5th, 2010|Employment Decisions, Press Release|

Alert Regarding Sexual Offender Data

A new California case came out March 23, 2010 that gives a background firm protection when it reports sexual offender data from the Megan’s Law Web site, and also clarifies that the prohibition of using sex offender registration information for employment does not apply when there is a person at risk.
For a quick review of the case, see:
http://www.esrcheck.com/wordpress/1440/california-case-protects-constitutional-right-of-background-screening-firm-to-report-sex-offender-registration.
The actual case can be found at:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B214653.PDF

March 26th, 2010|Educational Series, Legislation|

A career in fraud

A prospective client investigation was ordered on a company and its president, but the preliminary information on the president was enough to reject the subject or any company under his direction from the possible business engagement. Initial court searches uncovered a 2001 criminal misdemeanor conviction for possession of a false identification to be used to defraud. The index did not provide much information and the file was destroyed by the court, so SI’s analyst turned to media sources to dig deeper. Sure enough, one article referenced guilty pleas entered in 2002 by the subject and his business partner for hiring imposters to take the Series 7 securities brokers’ examination for them. Each was sentenced to a year of probation and fined $5,000. Other articles from 2002 reported three civil cases for fraud in locations where the subject appeared to have no residential history, and further disclosed that the subject and his partner had been statutorily disqualified from working for a broker licensed by the National Association of Securities Dealers, ordered to disgorge profits and interest totaling $4,649,125 and each were fined $15,000 in civil penalties in 2006. Articles also linked the subject to a con artist who had admitted to defrauding Jewish organizations and individuals of $80 million during the 1990s. Most recently, the FDIC had executed a written agreement with the subject and (the same) business partner after they allegedly failed to seek FDIC approval before making an investment in an unregistered bank holding company. On the whole, this company president had been engaged in fraudulent behavior for nearly a decade and no amount of legal or regulatory action appeared to change his mode of operation.

March 26th, 2010|Fraud|