Employee Background Check Errors Harm Thousands of Workers (consumerfinance.gov) 65
Slashdot reader dcblogs writes: Criminal background checks that incorrectly identify an applicant as a thief or sex offender happen more often than many expect. This story reviewed more than 75 lawsuits against background checks firms, spoke with plaintiff attorneys and industry experts to paint a picture of an industry that can ruin lives in minutes. Job applicants are labeled thieves and sex offenders by incorrect reports, and job candidates may protest, but it may not do them any good. Employers may drop them as damaged goods before the correction.
From the article: Some of the errors detailed in lawsuits against background check firms are inexplicable and show a lack of basic attention to detail. Common mistakes include mismatched names and addresses. One background check lawsuit alleged that the first name of Ashley was misidentified as Alysha. In another case, two people with the same first and last name were mixed up despite their distinct middle names: Magdalena and Elena... In another lawsuit, an applicant with a middle name of Scot (one T) was confused with someone whose middle name was Scott (two T's). A background check firm told one job applicant that his Social Security number was in the government's "Death Master File...."
"The candidate may protest. But by then, HR has likely dropped the candidate in an effort to fill an open position," the article points out, offering one example where a corrected background check then arrived, but several weeks later. (The man's lawyer believes it's common for employers to then still refuse to consider an applicaton, simply because "first impressions are everything.")
The article adds that the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is now "threatening enforcement actions in concert with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice." They've already issued an advisory in November calling out "shoddy name matching procedures" used to link people with criminal and other records, and warned that "Even ostensibly low error rates can harm significant numbers of consumers" — especially since more than 90% of U.S. employers use background check data in their hiring processes.
From the article: Some of the errors detailed in lawsuits against background check firms are inexplicable and show a lack of basic attention to detail. Common mistakes include mismatched names and addresses. One background check lawsuit alleged that the first name of Ashley was misidentified as Alysha. In another case, two people with the same first and last name were mixed up despite their distinct middle names: Magdalena and Elena... In another lawsuit, an applicant with a middle name of Scot (one T) was confused with someone whose middle name was Scott (two T's). A background check firm told one job applicant that his Social Security number was in the government's "Death Master File...."
"The candidate may protest. But by then, HR has likely dropped the candidate in an effort to fill an open position," the article points out, offering one example where a corrected background check then arrived, but several weeks later. (The man's lawyer believes it's common for employers to then still refuse to consider an applicaton, simply because "first impressions are everything.")
The article adds that the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is now "threatening enforcement actions in concert with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice." They've already issued an advisory in November calling out "shoddy name matching procedures" used to link people with criminal and other records, and warned that "Even ostensibly low error rates can harm significant numbers of consumers" — especially since more than 90% of U.S. employers use background check data in their hiring processes.
Criminal background checks in the USA are dumb (Score:5, Interesting)
Nothing like systematically making sure someone who has a turned to crime before and has "done their time" continue to be punished, prevented from getting a job, and forced to turn back to a life of crime to make ends meet. A self fulfilling prophecy.
The USA could learn a lot from other countries, such as mine where some jobs require a police letter of no objection. That letter gives a yes or no. It doesn't give details. The yes or no is very focused. A guy who has a criminal DUI record may get a No for applying for a job as a taxi driver, but a Yes for working with Children. Likewise an ex-childmolester will get a No working at a Childcare centre but a yes driving a taxi.
Common sense is really missing in the American system.
Re:Criminal background checks in the USA are dumb (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
HR departments end up getting filled with people who have failed at everything else, especially at the lower levels that do this kind of work.
HR has always had two conflicting objectives: find the best candidates, and keep the company payroll to a minimum. Payroll is almost always the single largest corporate expense. Often the expense control mandate takes over and HR will have minimal resources allocated to hiring; the emphasis becomes who can we cut and still keep going.
I know experienced and competent HR people who moved on because they didn't like becoming corporate job butchers. The HR people hired to replace them don't know any better
Re: Criminal background checks in the USA are dumb (Score:2)
a year's pay for the job that person is applying for if they provide an incorrect report
This only fixes the issue with erroneous checks, not the larger problem OP describes of bei g robbed of one's chance of rehabilitation.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:3)
No, he meant people convicted of minor offenses and low-class felonies. Not fucking murderers, you asswipe.
No I meant both actually. The prison justice system is designed to punish people for their crimes. Once they have "done their time" they should be welcomed back to society with the ability to be an active functioning member of it. Not limited in ways that are very likely to make them turn to crime again to make ends meet.
Now we could argue that maybe the "time" in this case was not enough for the two murderers in question, but the point remains the same, the punishment should be time limited.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I"m not sure where it says prison is the only punishment for crimes and a society is not able to establish its own additional consequences for antisocial behavior.
Ahhh okay, you're stuck in a feudal world where vigilante justice rains supreme and the laws of the land don't matter.
For example, I'm not sure someone convicted of embezzlement would be the best candidate for a financial position.
You're right, go back and read my original post.
Re: (Score:2)
And when you say "done their time", you mean people like this [cbsnews.com] or this [thehill.com], right?
Yes I do mean them. I'm not sure what your point is other than the prison "rehabilitation" isn't perfect (LOL to the use of the word rehabilitation), but ultimately you're pointing to two people who murdered again after getting out of prison. Clearly denying them jobs didn't save their second victims either.
Litigiousness (Score:4, Interesting)
If an ex-criminal commits *any* crime while working for a company, that company will, most likely, be sued out of existence in civil court by those harmed.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If an ex-criminal commits *any* crime while working for a company, that company will, most likely, be sued out of existence in civil court by those harmed.
I'm not sure in which twisted feverdream you came up with that, but that's literally not how it works anywhere in the world, and in the USA one could say the company conceivably only has this liability *because* of the extensive background checks they do. Ban the background checks you remove the (questionable) liability.
Re: Litigiousness (Score:3)
On what grounds?
If it's not illegal to employ an ex-con, then everything should be ok. If it's not, then perhaps some laws need to be passed to make it ok.
Liability (Score:3)
If it's not illegal to employ an ex-con, then everything should be ok. If it's not, then perhaps some laws need to be passed to make it ok.
Just because you follow the law doesn't mean you can't be sued in civil court.
Here is a paper about being sued for "negligent hiring."
https://scholarship.law.slu.ed... [slu.edu]
"If an employer receives an application from an ex-offender who has
shown that he or she is unlikely to engage in that same or similar behavior in
the future, that employer may be able to avoid liability for negligent hiring,
even if that employee subsequently causes harm. However, even some of the
courts applying the totality of circumstances sta
Re: Liability (Score:2)
Hm. Seems that a lot more is broken in your country than just sloppy information providers.
Wal-Mart (Score:2)
Currently, Wal-Mart is being sued by several states attorneys general, and patient advocacy groups, because they are aren't filling prescriptions for opioids from certain doctors they have determined to be over-prescribing them.
At the same time, they are being sued by the federal government for not being stringent enough in blocking prescriptions from doctors whom are over-prescribing opioids.
That is, they are being sued for following the law too closely and not following the law closely enough at the same
should be convection only and not just be changed! (Score:2)
should be convection only and not just be changed!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That failed...You have to post as yourself to remove a mis-mod. Posting AC doesn't remove mods.
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing like systematically making sure someone who has a turned to crime before and has "done their time" continue to be punished, prevented from getting a job, and forced to turn back to a life of crime to make ends meet.
Are you kidding? Limiting the negative consequences to that person would be *progress*. I know a guy named Mike Smith. If he gets pulled over he's got to wait for them to determine he was not the Mike Smith who was born in the same large hospital on the same day who often has arrest warrants out for him.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In St. Louis public urination will put you on the sex offender list. So if you are visiting the Arch use the restrooms.
Well, I mean there are some people who conflate pee and pokin' you know.
Re: (Score:3)
Also if the "sex offender" is somebody that got caught urinating against a tree?
Re: (Score:2)
America uses the term sex offender in the same useless and dangerous way as it uses background checks. It's a meaningless word that doesn't tell you if the guy was urinating in public, downloaded some loli cartoons from 4chan, or running around raping everything under 18 which moves.
Re: (Score:2)
That has got to be the dumbest AC post I've read. I realise what? I realise my own point I was making at the GP? Dude. Less weed while posting on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. But what can you expect for a bunch of people more interested in revenge and destroying all sinners than in acting humane and giving people a second chance?
Re: (Score:2)
Common sense is really missing ...
The US system isn't designed to be sensical. It's designed to prove "I'm really concerned and doing something", that rich people are "tough on" criminals, that capitalism provides.
The reality is, ex-criminals, particularly ex-felons, are a product to be exploited by corporations for profit (from these so-called criminal 'history' checks to surveillance and 'security' tools, all the way to for-profit prisons) and by anyone espousing the afore mentioned policies. It's why the system exists and why no-one
Re: (Score:2)
The USA could learn a lot from other countries, such as mine where some jobs require a police letter of no objection. That letter gives a yes or no. It doesn't give details. The yes or no is very focused.
So, in other words, it "works" almost exactly like the broken American version does; a criminal background check, does exactly one thing; check to see if you're a criminal or not. And the answer they're seeking, is the same as yours; Yes or No. It's obvious the continued unjust bias against the exonerated that employers do NOT give a shit about the crime details anymore.
A guy who has a criminal DUI record may get a No for applying for a job as a taxi driver, but a Yes for working with Children. Likewise an ex-childmolester will get a No working at a Childcare centre but a yes driving a taxi.
Well, it sure is a good thing that "ex" child molester (because THAT crime of course magically cures itself with a little jail time), has
Re: (Score:2)
So, in other words, it "works" almost exactly like the broken American version does; a criminal background check, does exactly one thing; check to see if you're a criminal or not. And the answer they're seeking, is the same as yours; Yes or No. It's obvious the continued unjust bias against the exonerated that employers do NOT give a shit about the crime details anymore.
No it doesn't. Re-read my post. The answer is not if someone is a criminal or not, the answer is if someone is not suitable for a specific role based on a very specific past crime. It is targeted and specific and basically no one with a criminal history ever has problem finding work here (though some may need a career change).
because THAT crime of course magically cures itself with a little jail time
Jail is punishment. Do you simply throw people in jail and be done with it? What is wrong with your society. Personally people with mental issues such as this get removed from society
Re: (Score:2)
because THAT crime of course magically cures itself with a little jail time
Jail is punishment. Do you simply throw people in jail and be done with it? What is wrong with your society. Personally people with mental issues such as this get removed from society while also getting professional help to rehabilitate. Maybe you should consider doing that as well.
Mere "jail" of quite often NOT the valid punishment someone with clear mental issues, requires. Kills me that you can actually bring up the issue of mental health, and yet fail to realize that "rehabilitating" a child molester with mere jail time, is quite often the most obvious failure of our judicial system. But hey, don't let me convince you of that. Wait until your "recidivist" Uber driver starts raping kids again, because Stupid assumed that sitting in a jail cell "cured" him or her of warped sexual
Re: (Score:2)
Will not fly in the US, unfortunately.
We tend to go too far. Either extreme way is fine, but moderation is not.
Cancer warnings? Every single thing and every building in California has them. They no longer have a meaning.
Sex offender lists? Anyone from Weinstein to public urinators will be there. All neighborhood maps will light up like christmas trees.
Zero cash bail? Sure, for all offenders, even for multiple repeaters.
So, that list will either contain everyone with a jaywalking offense, or nobody at all. W
Re: (Score:2)
The hiring process is FAR too broken to provide for the above nuance. There's an overwhelming number of applicants and usually people not qualified for the job that is being hired for are supposed to set limiting criteria
Logic can't be used because garbage-in ~= garbage-out.
No one deserves a job (Score:2)
Re: No one deserves a job (Score:5, Insightful)
I can assure you you worked your whole life besides criminals. Odds are you are a criminal yourself. Can you affirm you never, ever, not once in your life broke a criminal law? Do you even know all actions that are crimes in all laws?
What you are really objecting is working alongside people who got caught.
Re: (Score:3)
I can assure you you worked your whole life besides criminals. Odds are you are a criminal yourself. Can you affirm you never, ever, not once in your life broke a criminal law? Do you even know all actions that are crimes in all laws? What you are really objecting is working alongside people who got caught.
By US law you are only a criminal if you get caught. As for whether I personally have ever committed a crime, I have no idea. The number of weird laws that are on the books would astonish you. I can say that I have never been arrested or charged.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for your honesty. It is really rare these days.
Re: No one deserves a job (Score:4, Funny)
"Show me the man and I'll find you the crime."
- Lavrentiy Beria
Re: (Score:2)
So sad that the law has changed so much.
The US law used to require that someone actually be convicted of a crime.
For example: Under US law O.J. Simpson is not a murderer.
Now however if you just fall under the gaze of some spiteful 'social influencer' you are done.
Weird that twitter et al have become judge, jury, and executioner.
Re: (Score:2)
Weird that twitter et al have become judge, jury, and executioner.
More like a mob with torches and pitchforks, IMO.
re: odds are you're a criminal yourself (Score:3)
The problem with your comment here is, it's really not about if somebody has "ever broken a law" or even if "they ever got caught". It's about the DEGREE of the crime(s) committed. The background check services I've had my own info run through break down the results into categories. There's a category just for any sex offender type crimes, for example, and another that details traffic offenses.
Odds are, almost everyone has broken some laws or even breaks them daily. But odds are also that in those cases,
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the employer. While I didn't need a background check to get my job originally, I've had to have a few run since due to various changes in my duties. Our process is to show up at either the campus pd or now our new criminal justice training center and they do them there. Last one I did about 4 months ago the questions were almost exactly what was on the 4473 form (what you fill out when you buy a gun) and then fingerprints were taken electronically, which are then sent to the feds to process.
so someone did weed & they can't work an offic (Score:3)
so someone did weed & they can't work an office based job?
Now maybe if there are trying to get an CDL job and they have DUI's.
Re: (Score:2)
so someone did weed & they can't work an office based job?
Now maybe if there are trying to get an CDL job and they have DUI's.
Considering smoking weed contributes to memory loss [cbsnews.com] (study for reference [nih.gov]), not sure I'd want someone who couldn't remember what they were doing yesterday to be working in an environment which necessitates continuity of process. And dropping dead at the office when your heart gives out [nytimes.com] is never a good thing.
Dr. Vaduganathan said he was especially concerned about the increasing number of heart attacks among marijuana users younger than 50. In a registry of cases created by his colleagues, in young patients suffering a first heart attack, “marijuana smoking was identified as one factor that was more common among them.” The registry revealed that, even when tobacco use was taken into account, marijuana use was associated with twice the hazard of death among those under age 50 who suffered their first heart attack.
Other medical reports have suggested possible reasons. A research team headed by Dr. Carl J. Lavie of the John Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute in New Orleans, writing in the journal Missouri Medicine, cited case reports of inflammation and clots in the arteries and spasms of the coronary arteries in young adults who smoke marijuana.
Another damaging effect that has been linked to marijuana is disruption of the heart’s electrical system, causing abnormal heart rhythms like atrial fibrillation that can result in a stroke. In one survey of marijuana smokers, the risk of stroke was increased more than threefold.
Re: (Score:2)
Then Nixon implemented draconian drug laws to printed the Republican social agenda. This resulted in law enforcement killing people at will and searching and destroying property with minimally compliant warrants.
Hopefully that is changing and law enforcement and employers are going to be less able to use dr
Re: (Score:2)
so someone did weed & they can't work an office based job?
The stoners keep breaking into the snack vending machines....
Criminal background status (Score:2)
If private employers feel that they have a need for this, they should have to petition the court system for the status of an individual. And if a sufficient case isn't made, then it should not be revealed to private parties.
Need a national ID (Score:2)
have you ever been arrested? (Score:2)
I've seen that question on many a job application form, and it always seemed inappropriate. Sometimes there's an adjacent line where you can explain why, other times not. You can be arrested for all kinds of reasons including being in the wrong place at the wrong time, it doesn't mean you were guilty of anything.
Re: (Score:2)
How do we check? (Score:2)
US "Denied Party Screening" (Score:2)
Can we check companies (Score:2)
Every company has committed crime;
"Everyone has committed a crime, it's about who we decide to prosecute" --KGB https://archive.is/66i7d [archive.is]