Does your organization conduct background checks as part of the hiring process? Many organizations do, but the type of background check—and the extent of it—varies considerably. Let’s take a look at some of the most pertinent reasons so many businesses opt to perform some type of background check on any potential new employee.
 |
Some of the Reasons for Conducting a Background Check
Probably the biggest reason employers choose to perform background checks on potential employees is safety and security. Employers have an obligation under OSHA to provide a safe workplace—one that is free of known hazards. It can be easily argued that hiring an individual with violent tendencies—tendencies that could have been discovered with due diligence—would represent a disregard for that obligation. As such, many employers opt to perform at least a criminal background check on potential employees before finalizing any offer of employment.
Similarly, if an individual causes harm to anyone—such as a customer or vendor—the employer may be liable if there was an opportunity to learn about this tendency, such as the existence of a public criminal record.
Security is another concern, especially for jobs in which an individual is responsible for cash or for making decisions that affect the company’s profitability or reputation. For any individual in these roles, employers often consider doing a background check that confirms the individual does not have a history of fraud, negligence, or theft, for example.
Background checks can also be done on a more limited scale. Technically, even calling references is a form of background screening. In these situations, an employer is trying to gauge what the potential employee is like to work with, to better ensure it will be a good fit. These can also be done as a means to try to uncover any fabrications or exaggerations on the application, résumé, or during the interview.
Conducting Background Checks: Some Caveats
Despite these very good reasons to conduct an employee background check, there are limits to what an employer can discover and use. For example:
- Employers should be careful not to make decisions based solely on arrest records. An arrest is not the same as a conviction, and some protected groups may be disproportionately affected by a policy that disallows a perspective employee due to any arrest—thus making such a policy discriminatory.
- Credit checks and other background checks require employee consent. Without consent, such checks can be illegal, depending on what type of check is conducted. Consult legal counsel and get advance permission before conducting background screenings. Additionally, if you use an employee’s credit rating as part of the background screening process, first be sure there is a legitimate business purpose for doing so. Otherwise, this alone can be a form of discrimination if potential employees are excluded based on credit. This is because lower credit scores disproportionately affect some protected groups, and eliminating on this basis alone would create a disparate impact on these groups. Even with a legitimate business purpose for checking a credit score, the employer must also be sure to follow the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) rules.
- Background checks can inadvertently turn up information that discloses an employee’s inclusion in a protected class. Even if this information is not used in the hiring process, it is risky for an employer to have such information at this stage because it raises the possibility of a discrimination claim. For this reason, many employers use third-party services to conduct background checks—and those service providers only turn over information that is relevant to the hiring process, insulating the employer from knowledge about protected class inclusion and other information that should not be used in hiring decisions.
- There are many federal, state, and local laws that limit the type of information that an employer can seek out—be sure to consult local laws and understand the limitations.
- Be sure any background screening is relevant to the job. For example, there is probably no need to get a driving record for someone who will not be driving for the company in any capacity.
- Be consistent in conducting background checks. Do not conduct background checks only for certain applicants but not others who are up for the same job. It’s OK to only conduct background screening after you’ve made a short list, but it’s not OK to only conduct background checks on individuals of specific groups, such as minorities or immigrants. Be consistent in the hiring process for each job opening.
- When something is uncovered during a background screening, consider giving the applicant the opportunity to share more information about the situation. While you still need to be consistent in how the situation is handled, it’s always possible that there’s a mistake that can be rectified or there are extenuating circumstances that change the view of the situation. Of course, if you’re going to give the opportunity for explanations, be consistent and offer this opportunity every time the situation arises.
Does your company conduct employee background checks? What advice would you provide based on your experience?
*This article does not constitute legal advice. Always consult legal counsel with specific questions.
About Bridget Miller:
Bridget Miller is a business consultant with a specialized MBA in International Economics and Management, which provides a unique perspective on business challenges. She’s been working in the corporate world for over 15 years, with experience across multiple diverse departments including HR, sales, marketing, IT, commercial development, and training.
Very interesting–I’ve never thought of the OSHA implications before.
Background crazy nation won’t admit it’s just fear of liability and bias- period!
There is a political hot potato that far too few in Washington are willing to confront. That would be the nearly 1 in 4 Americans with some form of criminal record in this country. There are a number of amazingly talented and intelligent people who have been convicted of minor crimes at some point in their lives. This latest push to address the issue of Felony disenfranchisement in employment doesn’t seem to address the issue of misdemeanors. Isn’t this putting the horse before the cart- so to speak? In this current climate of over-zealous prosecution, default to plea deals- especially for the poor, ramped-up patrols, and increasing police misconduct, we can probably agree that people aren’t perfect; and probably never were. But the days of officer community assistance seems to be vanishing. The days of stopping citizens and offering them help, or providing warnings for simple human mistakes in judgment, seem to be disappearing. Consequently, more people than ever are being convicted of minor crimes and misdemeanors. With 65 to 68 million Americans with some kind of criminal record, more than any country in the world, isn’t it time to take a hard look at why this is? Is it because the American culture cultivates this type of environment? Are Americans villains? I earnestly don’t think so. We live in a culture that suggests that we all have a voice in our democratic process; that we all matter. And with this freedom comes a tendency to ‘live out loud’- sometimes a little too loudly. But how many of us are truly ‘criminal’- by definition? We don’t endorse- or participate in such cultural practices as honor killings, acid attacks, genital mutilation, or deny women the rights that any just society would see as basic and fundamental. Sadly, we seem to be vilifying far too many good people in this country. And I think there are a lot of citizens in this country who are feeling frustrated, powerless, and like their government could care less about them. I think that is why so many seem so angry and divided. A increasing number of Americans are feeling like they not only don’t matter, but that their government is undermining the middle class and destroying the American Dream, by putting money and politics above the concerns of the people. I think it would be presumptuous and short-sighted to assume that this is the case. I believe it has more to do with policy, law, and conflicting interests creating immovable gridlock in our country. This would obviously impact the economy. One major point of gridlock lies in the fact that over 65 million people in this country have some form of criminal record and have increasingly limited employment options. The internet has made the world a smaller place, and with more and more employers making background checks a part of their hiring process, many of those with any type of record are automatically disqualified; regardless of how old conviction(s) are, whether they’re old spent misdemeanor(s), or are relevant to the job. I’d like to add that there is absolutely no proof that would suggest that any person who has been convicted of a crime(s) would be any more likely, than anyone else in the population, to commit a crime on the job (often the argument of far too many employers- suggesting that their current employees/clients/assets are at greater risk if they were to hire someone with a prior record). Case in point; many of the shooters in the media of late did NOT have a prior criminal record; so background checks would have been rendered useless. I am just as concerned for the safety and protection of this country; as any proud American would be. But is continuing to deny employment and a sense of purpose to millions and millions of citizens the answer?
Wouldn’t it be in the best interest of our great nation to consider rehabilitative attitudes toward re-entry? I am not suggesting a ‘blanket’ policy that gives restoration to those who haven’t earned it. But I am suggesting that individual people change. I am one of them. Might those individuals who have changed their reckless and selfish behaviors, having worked very hard to become a better person, have the opportunity to become a contributing member of society? Is it really necessary to over-look so much American human potential?
Background Investigations- they are important, they are necessary and if you hire someone without one YOU are a fool. Sure people make errors and clean up themselves. But what is a minor crime? If I cut yard for a living and you steal my lawn mower is that a minor crime, if I need a bike to get to work and you steal it is that a minor crime.Read what you can find on the Broken Window Theory, it will give you some insight to how many of our fellow Americans act. You must know who you are employing if it is a truck driver and he/she has a bad driving record and they have a chargeable accident and kill folks you can bet you are going to pay and if your insurance company learns you didn’t check them out you will pay even more. Some people who kill a person are better risks that armed robbers of people who break into your house at night (they do not mind a confrontation with you). Yes I am bias in the name of Public Safety. Perhaps parents should do a better job at managing children,