Separating Good Employees from Great Employees When Interviewing

The process of interviewing can become a monotonous task for employers in need of hiring, sifting through countless applications. To avoid falling into a generic routine comprised of run-of-the-mill interview questions and potentially hiring a damaging employee, take the following evaluations into consideration when interviewing in order to truly gauge an applicant’s worth.

What is their vision?

Asking an interviewee where they see themselves in 5 or 10 years leaves the door open for common, overused answers. Elaborate on this topic by asking what their professional vision within the company is. How can he or she contribute something that hasn’t been done before? An applicant who can quickly and thoroughly answer questions regarding their future, and what they can bring to the table is typically a visionary who can recognize his or her own value.

Why did they leave their previous job, and did they attempt to find a solution?

Whether or not candidates you are interviewing left their previous place of work due to inadequate pay, or problems with coworkers, asking if they’ve tried to rectify the issue at hand will allow them to show their problem solving abilities in situations that call for such skills. If the problem they faced led to them quitting the very next day, that may show their inability to cope with difficulties. However, if they are simply exploring their options within the working world, you do not want your business to be seen as a negotiation for higher pay, leveraging against their current position. Be sure applicant’s want to work for your company specifically, and are not merely weighing their odds in order to find any job they can.

What is something new they learned within the past month?

Questions pertaining to an interviewee’s self-development forces them to consider how aspects of their personal lives relate to their professional careers. Rather than listing bullets on their resumes one by one that relate only to their work history, candidates should be able to show an eagerness for growth outside of the office. Ask them to teach you something. As vague of a question as that is, it compels the interviewee to dive into their personal interests, showing their enthusiasm for learning. An applicant that takes ownership of his or her personal growth is typically one that can be trusted to successfully grow within your company.

Going above and beyond in the interviewing process can yield extremely beneficial results for employers looking to find their next great employee. Look to stray away from standard interview questions that almost all applicants can answer with ease. Candidates that can translate well to your business’s needs will manifest themselves through these unique questions by showcasing their skills and ability to think quickly on their feet.

S2Verify Has Received NAPBS Accreditation

We are proud to announce that we have received accreditation by the National Association of Professional Background Screeners’ (NAPBS®) Background Screening Credentialing Council (BSCC). This endorsement from the NAPBS validates our commitment to service excellence. This accreditation serves as proof of our business and process standards. It reflects the values our company has maintained since its inception in 2009.

To become BSCC-accredited, consumer reporting agencies must pass a rigorous on-site audit, conducted by an independent auditing firm, of its policies and procedures. The audit focuses on six critical areas: consumer protection, legal compliance, client education, product standards, service standards, and general business practices. Only about 10% of background screening providers in the United States are NAPBS accredited. We are so honored to be in elite company and recognized as one of the leaders in our industry. 

For more information about NAPBS accreditation and what it entails, click here. 

Assessment of the Effects of EEOC's 2012 Background Screening Guidance

In December of 2012, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights held a briefing to assess the effects of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s 2012 Guidance. This briefing was held to discuss the impact that their guidance had on background screening for both black/Hispanic applicants and employers. Record of this briefing was just released as a 346-page report. I have taken the time to summarize the main points discussed in the report.

The briefing consisted of 17 speakers from diverse backgrounds. While some of the speakers were pro-EEOC Guidance, many speakers took issue with the 2012 Guidance in some way or another.

The speakers are as follows: 

• Alfred Blumstein, Professor of Urban Systems, Carnegie Mellon University

• Carol Miaskoff, Acting Associate Legal Counsel, EEOC

• Don Livingston, Parter, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld

• Garen Dodge, Partner, Jackson Lewis LLP

• Glenn E. Martin, Vice President of Development and Public Affairs and Director of the David Rothenberg Center for Public Policy at the Fortune Society

• Harry Holzer, Professor of Public Policy, Georgetown University

• Jeffrey Sedgwick, Co-Founder, Keswick Advisors

• Jonathan Segal, Partner, Duane Morris LLP, Legislative Director, Society for Human Resource Management

• Julie Payne, Sr. Vice President and General Counsel of G4S Secure Solutions USA

• Lucia Bone, Founder of Sue Weaver C.A.U.S.E. (Consumer Awareness of Unsafe Service Employment)

• Montserrat Miller, Partner, Arnall Golden Gregory; Counsel, National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS)

• Nick Fishman, Co-Founder, Chief Marketing Officer and Executive Vice President, EmployeeScreenIQ

• Richard Larson, President, Winning Work Teams, Inc.

• Richard Mellor, VP, Loss Prevention, National Retail Federation

• Roberta Meyers, Director of Legal Action Center’s National Helping Individuals with Criminal Records Reenter through Employment Network, Also Known as H.I.R.E

• Todd McCracken, President, National Small Business Association

• William Dombi, VP, National Association for Home Care and Hospice

Objective of EEOC Guidance

The EEOC claimed the 2012 Guidance is in response to a disparate impact background screening has had on racial minorities. In other words, minorities have been experiencing difficulties while seeking employment due to a past criminal conviction. The objective of the EEOC is to give minorities an equal chance to re-integrate into society.

The Guidance:

• Puts employers on notice that categorical exclusions for people with certain arrest and conviction records may violate Title VII

• Emphasizes its earlier recommendation that job applications not ask about criminal records, and if they do ask, that they limit inquiries to conviction records for which exclusion would be job-related with business necessity

• Offers a series of examples of common policies and practices that violate Title VII 

• Informs local and state governments that barring people with certain criminal records from jobs or occupational licenses also could violate Title VII.  

Advocates of the EEOC Guidance made several arguments for its most recent list of best practices:

• There are over 65 million individuals with criminal records in this country

• By age 35, one-third of all young black men have been incarcerated at some point. 

• A person should not be haunted many years later by a mistake they made at a young age.

• Criminal Records have a more negative impact on employment for minorities.

• Recidivism probability declines with time clean after an arrest or conviction.

• Recidivism is less probable if an individual gains employment.

Speaker Glenn E. Martin presented a study that showed that black applicants with a criminal record were twice as likely to be denied a job as white applicants. He also reported that black and Latino applicants with clean backgrounds fared no better than white applicants just released from prison.

Harry Holzer made several compelling points:

“The prevalence of arrests and convictions among less-educated American men substantially reduces employer willingness to hire them later in life and worsens their employment outcomes more generally, in ways that generate clear “disparate impacts” on minority (especially black) men.

The very high costs of previous criminal histories on employment are borne not only by the offenders themselves, but also by their families and children, their communities, and the US economy more broadly; accordingly having some successful policy efforts to improve employment outcomes for this population are in the nation’s interest.

The EEOC Guidance should be viewed as one of several potentially effective legal and policy efforts to reduce the many barriers to employment among men with criminal records and thus to improve their employment outcomes.”

The Other Side of the Argument

Many speakers stressed that employers should not be restricted in their use of background checks due to:

• The reality of recidivism

• The prevalence of violent and/or theft-related offenses among inmates. 

• OSHA rules that require employers to provide a safe workplace. 

• Federal, state and local laws and licensing requirements that restrict individuals with certain convictions from employment in selected occupations. 

• State laws that put employers at risk for hiring mistakes. 

• Employer desire to protect business assets.  

Major Concerns 

Many speakers took issue with at least some part of the 2012 Guidance. The concerns that were echoed by the majority were:

• The Guidance is unclear. It is written in a way that is confusing to small business owners.

• The Guidance is vague about the act of conducting an individualized assessment.

• A conflict may arise when a state law mandates a background check, but taking adverse action based on that background check may result in a class action.

• The EEOC’s strategic enforcement plan to create class claims from individual claims encourages investigators to conduct overbroad inquiries.

• The EEOC’s restriction on the use of criminal background checks will have disastrous effects on public safety.

• The guidance results in more risk to the employer. For instance, an employer may feel pressure to hire an employee with a criminal record against his better judgment, resulting in a negligent hiring law suit. 

The EEOC aims to give minorities a fair chance to obtain a job after a conviction. They argue that the struggle to re-integrate into society has a profound effect on not only the individuals involved, but the economy as a whole. Frankly, nobody wants an individual to be perpetually unemployed because of a single mistake they made. But according to those opposed to the guidance as it stands, here lies the dilemma. 

The opposition claims if an employer takes a chance on an applicant with a prior conviction, employees and clients are potentially put at risk. By treating minorities with prior convictions as a protected class, are we putting co-workers and customers at risk? Who is correct, the EEOC or those who spoke out against the Guidance? 

We do not have the answer, but we do feel a certain responsibility to help companies comply with the EEOC’s 2012 Guidance. Our clients can rest assured that we will provide as much information as possible to help them maintain compliance. Some of the concerns that were voiced by several speakers have not yet been answered, but we will keep an eye on any potential developments/changes the EEOC might make. 

You can find the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’ entire report here. Comments? Concerns?

Large National Retailer Settles Class Action for $3 Million

A large retailer reached a settlement for $3 million dollars over allegations that it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).  The allegation stated that the large retailer failed to notify over 64,500 applicants and give them  due process to dispute the accuracy of the information contained in the Consumer Report.

The FCRA clearly states that you must notify an applicant if a "Consumer Report" contains derogatory information about the applicant and give them time to dispute or correct the information prior to making a final determination on their employment.   It further states that you must give the applicant the contact information of the Credit Reporting Agency (CRA).  This process is defined as pre-adverse action.

It is alleged that the large retailer bypassed this step in the process and simply notified the applicants of the adverse action or their potential denial of employment.

As a reminder to employers, you are obligated to follow the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) as well as state laws.

The obligation for the employer under the FCRA:

1) Provide the applicant with a separate "Disclosure and Consent" form.
2) Ensure that your consent covers any additional State Laws if they applicant is located in that state.
3) Give the applicant access to the "Summary of Rights" that was updated as of January 1, 2013.
4) If their "Consumer Report" contains derogatory information that will affect their employment, notify the applicant with pre-adverse action and let them know what Credit Reporting Agency to contact to clear up any information that is inaccurate. 
5) If the information is accurate and you determine that the applicant is not suited for a specific job, then notify the applicant of adverse action and again give the applicant the name of the CRA and another copy of the "Summary of Rights."

For more information regarding the employers responsibility, please refer to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Newark (NJ) Ordinance "Bans the Box" and Significantly Restricts the Use of Criminal History Information in Employment

The City of Newark, New Jersey recently passed an ordinance that will significantly impact employers’ and other entities’ ability to conduct criminal background checks or even ask about a candidate’s criminal background. The ordinance limits both when and the extent to which employers may ask about or use criminal history in employment. Newark’s ordinance12-1630, entitled “Ordinance To Assist The Successful Reintegration Of Formerly Incarcerated People Into The Community By Removing Barriers To Gainful Employment And Stable Housing After Their Release From Prison; And To Enhance The Health And Security Of The Community By Assisting People With Criminal Convictions On Reintegration Into The Community And Providing For Their Families,” goes into effect on November 18, 2012.

Newark’s ordinance is the latest example of a series of efforts at the federal, state and local level aimed at curtailing employers’ ability to use criminal history information in employment. At the federal level, employers should be aware of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) April 25, 2012 Guidance on the Use of Arrest and Convictions (the Guidance) which sets forth practices employers may want to consider so as not to be a target of the EEOC. Similarly, a number of states have pending legislation seeking to follow the EEOC’s lead. This, in addition to other states which have already regulated this area.

Who is Covered Under Newark’s Ordinance

Newark’s ordinance is only applicable when the “the physical location of the prospective employment [is] in whole or substantial part, within the City of Newark.” In that sense, it is of limited local application. Importantly, the term “employer” is defined as “any person, company, corporation, firm, labor organization, or association, which has five (5) or more employees and does business, employs persons, or takes applications for employment within the city of Newark…”

“Employment” is defined more broadly, however, as “any occupation, vocation, job, work or employment with or without pay, including temporary or seasonal work, contracted work, contingent work, and work through the services of a temporary or other employment agency, or any form of vocational or educational training with or without pay.” (emphasis added).
These definitions suggest that the prohibitions contained in the ordinance, as well as the affirmative obligations it imposes, may apply with equal force when an employer is seeking volunteers, students, or independent contractors as opposed to solely employees.

As always, we suggest you consult with your own counsel regarding this matter, however feel free to contact us for further information.

Vermont Joins Growing Number of States Restricting Use of Credit Checks for Employment Purposes

Effective July 1, 2012, Vermont joins California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Oregon, Washington, as jurisdictions which restrict an employer’s right to obtain and use credit information for making employment decisions.

Under this new law, a Vermont employer may not inquire about or use an applicant or employee’s credit report or credit history with respect to employment, compensation, or a term, condition, or privilege of employment unless: 1. The information is required by state or federal law or regulation; 2. The position being sought or held involves access to confidential financial information (defined as sensitive financial information of commercial value that a customer or client of the employer gives explicit authorization for the employer to obtain, process, and store and that the employer entrusts only to managers or employees as a necessary function of their job duties); 3. The employer is a financial institution as defined in 8 V.S.A.§ 11101(32) or a credit union as defined in 8 V.S.A. § 30101(5);  4. The position being sought or held is that of a law enforcement officer as defined in 20 V.S.A. § 2358, emergency medical personnel as defined in 24 V.S.A. § 2651(6), or a firefighter as defined in 20 V.S.A. § 3151(3); 5. The position being sought or held requires a financial fiduciary responsibility to the employer or a client of the employer, including the authority to issue payments, collect debts, transfer money, or enter into contracts; 6. The employer can demonstrate that the information is a valid and reliable predictor of employee performance in the specific position being sought or held;  and/or 7. The position being sought or held involves access to an employer’s payroll information.  However, even if an employer can avail itself of one of these exemptions, the applicant or employee’s credit report or history may not be the sole factor in decisions regarding employment, compensation, or a term, condition, or privilege of employment.

If an employer is lawfully permitted to obtain credit history, the employer must: 1. Obtain the employee’s or applicant’s written consent each time the employer seeks to obtain the employee’s or applicant’s credit report; and 2.  Disclose in writing to the employee or applicant the employer’s reasons for accessing the credit report, and if an adverse employment action is taken based upon the credit report, disclose the reasons for the action in writing. The employee or applicant has the right to contest the accuracy of the credit report or credit history.

Vermont employers who conduct credit checks must closely review this statute to ensure that information is only obtained where permitted by law and that all necessary disclosures are provided to applicants and employees.   Further, even if an exemption is applicable, a Vermont employer must not base any employment decisions solely on credit history.

Feel free as always to direct any questions on the appropriate use of Credit Reports to compliance@s2verify.com

Background Checks & Credit Reports

 On March 13th, Commissioner Victoria Lipnic of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) spoke at an event on "Due Diligence, Background Checks and Employment: Protecting the Safety of Employees, Customers and At-Risk Populations." Lipnic stated that the EEOC is "likely" to issue new guidance to employers on the use of both criminal history and credit background checks in the near future.

Regarding criminal history, Lipnic noted that the EEOC was unlikely to establish a strict rule about the specific period of time after which a conviction could no longer be considered in making employment decisions. Lipnic, however, cautioned that employers should avoid "blanket" bans on hiring individuals with criminal convictions as such bans could have a disparate impact on certain minority groups.

The event was hosted by the National Association of Professional Background Screeners, the Consumer Data Industry Association, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

(http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/lipnic.cfm)

Man Denied Job Over 20-Year-Old Criminal Conviction, Wins Discrimination Lawsuit

A job applicant for a temporary staffing agency was denied a position over a record from the 1980's.  He filed a discrimination case against the temporary staffing agency and won. 

“Employment policies that impose a blanket exclusion on people with past convictions, without any consideration of the relationship of the conviction to the job in question, can constitute unlawful discrimination," Jennifer Clarke, executive director of the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, said in a press release.

The nonprofit law center helped the man file the employment discrimination lawsuit, which explains why denying an applicant employment based on their criminal record violates the law:

"While such policies are facially neutral, they produce severe disparate impact on racial minorities, including African-American, Native Americans and Latinos, because of the significantly higher rates of criminal convictions experienced by these populations."

Recently Pepsi settled a similar case for $3.1 million dollars for using arrest records that kept approximately 300 people from getting a job.

"More companies are getting sued because of their inconsistent hiring policies, using arrest records, and using convictions that are not within the Federal or State guidelines or inconsistently applying the law", says Bill Whitford, CEO of S2Verify.  "Companies need to review their policy and framework around hiring to adjust to these actions and lawsuits"