Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
According to the OP, the employer did not use a third party for the information
but went direct to the government agency which is a small loophole in the law.
When every state has the PUBLIC records online... using them is hardly a "small loophole"
It is the fundamental basis for their existence. And being so transparent (as they should be)
and commonly available even to amateur inquiry informing the applicant that their publicly
available criminal history was used as the basis for declining them is at the level of courtesy.
The inference is that the applicant didn't describe their criminal past in advance.
Take a chance and didn't announce it in the resume and cover letter? Okay; that's fair enough.
But at some point they'll have an application/history form to fill out.
only a handful of states have their own version of the federal FCRA reporting law. for states that don't, they default to the federal model of FCRA
the Federal model states that arrests can be reported for up to seven years and that convictions can be reported indefinitely
NY state General Business Law article 25 section 380 j is somewhat more in favor of the consumer: arrest info pertaining to a criminal charge is prohibited from being reported unless there was a criminal conviction relative to the arrest or unless the arrest is still, pending; convictions can be reported for up to seven years; however, if the applicant is expected to be earning $25,000 or more on the job, the seven year rule does not apply
im curious if job references can be reported in a consumer report like convictions can
these FCRA rules only apply to uses in Consumer Reports, not when a check is done in- house
Do you mean if someone gives you a bad job reference can that be reported to future employers or as general knowledge?
I seriously doubt it. Usually it's a verbal conversation on the phone. Was Jimmy a good employee? Well actually he was late often and didn't seem to care about his work. Yea that reference would suck, but how/who/where would that be reported? Unless you did something illegal like stealing from the company...but that's probably reported in a legal fashion, not via a job reference.
You get to pick who you list as references....don't pick bad ones.
Like I said, you get to pick the reference. I doubt that gets reported anywhere. Now if a new job is simply contacting your previous employers...then things get hairy. Most places I've worked are only allowed to confirm dates of employment for FEAR of being sued. The thought is that if the employee doesn't get the new job, they will sue the old employer for giving a bad reference. Unless the new employer specifically says 'we aren't hiring you because your previous employer gave you a bad reference' you won't know WHY you weren't hired and thus, how could you pursue legal action? For all you know someone else was just more qualified.
Know that these are difference sections of an app. When you list your employment they usually ask 'may we contact this employer'. This is where they usually just confirm employment. Under the references section this is where probably should ASK specific people to be references for you - so pick ones that will give you a favorable reference.
Again - if you did something illegal like stealing or falsifying time card or something...it won't be reported unless they filed a report with authorities. Then it's just a matter of how the police handle documenting that. Can they tell people who call for references that info? Maybe. But if they are telling the truth I doubt you could pursue legal action for not getting a job simply because they honestly gave a reference. They don't have to lie for you.
Without knowing details in this case I can say MOST companies only care about felonies, usually violent felonies, if it is a position is one where you will be providing care to children or adults ALL sex or violence related felonies will prevent you from being hired. NO, you can't go back on the company for not hiring you, you signed a form allowing them to do the search and KNOW you would not be hired if they don't like the results.
1. The employer must disclose the adverse action but unlike a Consumer or Investigative Report, it's the employee in this case who must ask for the details. According to the OP, the employer did not use a third party for the information but went direct to the government agency which is a small loophole in the law. The employer must provide the name of the agency and the information obtained if asked, but from my understanding this is the one loophole where disclosure is by request, not automatic. Now it’s probably in an employer’s best interest to always disclose the same as if required.
2. Can you show me any federal law that prohibits an employer from disclosing negative information on a former employee? There are two significant cases where the courts stated that unless prohibited by a state law, an employer is free to disclose any truthful information on an employee. They did also say that the information disclosed must be fair and balance so you cannot decide to only disclose negative information without also providing all the positive information. Since this is a difficult concept to balance, most employers steer clear of this issue. However, that doesn’t mean they can’t disclose negative information if they wanted.
3. So what is your explanation?
As a rule. I no longer engage with people who have NO idea on actual laws in employment and still decide to post as if they do.
As for my explanations, feel free to look up my old posts. They have more than covered why I stated, and stand by, that you are wrong.
OP....this poster is going to get you in trouble. Legal trouble.
I have a non criminal violation that is 17 years old. NY State no longer reports these offenses on it's background checks because they're not crimes. I just posted these questions out of general interest. I know
As a rule. I no longer engage with people who have NO idea on actual laws in employment and still decide to post as if they do.
As for my explanations, feel free to look up my old posts. They have more than covered why I stated, and stand by, that you are wrong.
OP....this poster is going to get you in trouble. Legal trouble.
You call simple "nopes" or "not true" as Engaging in discussion... that’s a pretty sad statement about your position. You have not provided any information at all. As for looking at your past comments, we are not talking about past discussions, we are talking about this discussion, so why not state your case. Regardless of why you feel what you feel, (that’s your right), I stand by my position based on the following:
The FCRA is available in hundreds of thousands of ways for an employee to check and see exactly what reporting requirements are required under federal laws. That is the facts supported by law. You may not like it, you may not agree with it, and you may not want it to be the case, but absent a change in the law, that’s what it is! I recognize that many employees and even employers are ignorant about their rights and responsibilities under the FCRA and thus assume something is or isn’t allowed, but the law is available (and may I add a very simple and easy one to understand) can be checked by anyone who wants to check it.
As for the information an employer provides, Kadlec Medical Center v. Lakeview Anesthesia established that an employer is free to limit the information they provide to the basics if that is their policy and they apply it equally to all. So if an employer provided only dates, salary and titles, that’s perfectly legal. However in Randi W. v. Muroc JUSD, the court held Muroc JUSD liable because although they did not provide any of the negative information on the former employee, they did provide a positive recommendation. The court in this case established that if you give information you must give fair and balance information, so good info must also include the bad info, and the bad info must also include the good info. These are two well known cases used often in HR and employment law advice to companies.
These are the basis of my comments on the subject, or would you prefer a simpler more intellectual "not, not, not not!"?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
