According to Flint (2007), it is important that federal and state laws should require employers. Conducting background checks is an essential protocol that most companies follow. These checks are usually done by commercial data brokers and other private agencies specializing on the field. This is where the importance of conducting background checks comes into play. There have been a lot of negligent hiring cases that have been raised in the past few years. The trend in the increase according to Flint (2007), started after the 9/11 terrorism act that happened in 2001. Another important factor why background checks became a big thing is because the advancements in technology have made background checks more accessible. In relevance to background checks, another significant matter that needs to be considered on doing background checks is the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). This was passed to promote the accuracy of the information being used by third-party agencies. This would also include the regulation of the use of information and define its limitations. Flint (2007).
According to Flint (2007), whenever third party organizations are asked by employers for background checks on their employees, the particular act mentioned above obliges the employer to let the applicant know and get permission for the background check. Further, the act also obliges the employer that if the results of the background check are not positive, the employer must let this be known to the employee together with the notice of the action and information about the consumer reporting agency that the employer used to conduct the background check.
Pros and Cons on the Debate Question
On the positive side of the coin that it should be mandatory to do background checks for all employees to reduce negligent hiring, the following are the points that should be considered. According to Hauswirth (2009), if employers are careless in their recruiting and employment processes, companies will just put themselves in revenue-losing situation. Even if you only have one employee who would turn out to be the result of negligent hiring could put the company in a circumstance that would affect all aspects of their business, financially and in maintaining a good reputation. Though companies may have their own reasons for not conducting background checks due t costs, still the cost of not doing due diligence can result in negative consequences. Hauswirth (2009) found that there are reasons, which are criminal in nature that should encourage employers to prescreen applicants. There are no shortcuts to making sure employees are of good moral standing in the society.
On the negative side of the debate question, it would not be ideal to make background checks mandatory when public records can’t easily be accessible. There are questions as to how much can the employers really delve into the records that significant agencies can provide. It would be difficult for employers to just scan through individuals’ records since these are protected by the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Important Court Cases on Events/Debate in Question
HR Management Magazine’s (2011) study found the following cases:
For the case Tallahassee Furniture Co., Inc. v. Harrison, the company was held responsible for negligent hiring. Tallahassee Furniture Co is a furniture company. They were found responsible for $2.5 million for negligent hiring. They also apparently retained an employee who delivered a product to the woman’s home and attacked her.
For the case Doe v. MCLO, a child was sexually abused by an employee with a criminal record. They were asked to pay $1.75 million. This was awarded to the plaintiff,
For the case Deerings West Nursing Center v. Scott, the nursing home company paid $235,000 for hiring an unlicensed nurse. She had 56 criminal convictions prior to her employment. This convicted employee hurt an 80-year-old who was visiting the nursing home.
For the case Butler v. Hertz Corp, the company paid $2.5 million due to hiring an intoxicated security guard. The guard had met a car accident during work hours which killed him and another person.
For the case Porter v. Proffitt's, Inc, a security guard detained a customer and thought of him shoplifting. The customer was hurt and injured while he was detained.
For the case, Liebman v. Hall Fin. Group, Inc, the defendant was awarded $5 million settlement against the apartment management for an alleged killing of a tenant by an employee.
For the case McLean v. Kirby Co., this company was asked to pay for $45,000 due to employee who abused sexually a female customer in her home.
4 Critical Thinking Questions
PROS
1. How soon can employers do the background check?
2. How can the issue of privacy affect employment background checks?
CONS
1. Don’t people who have bad records deserve a second chance to get employed and renew their lives?
2. What are the responsibilities of the government agencies’ who hold the necessary documents that can make sure the necessary files needed for an employee are accessible?
Individual Resources
Consumer Credentials (2004). Why Conduct Background Checks .Retrieved fromhttp://www.consumercredentials.com/background-checks-why.htm
HR Management (2012). Back To The Future Of Employment Background Checks. Retrieved from
http://www.hrmreport.com/article/Back-To-The-Future-Of-Employment-Background-Checks/
William Hauswirth (2009). Negligent Hiring: Employer Risk. Retrieved from http://www.iso.com/Research-and-Analyses/ISO-Review/Negligent-Hiring-Employer-Risk.html
Leslie Flint (2007). An Increase in Employee Background Checks Strains an Already Weak. Retrieved from
http://www.privacyrights.org/ar/LeslieFlint-BGChks.html
