A former clerk at the North Carolina
Division of Motor Vehicles is facing 18 charges, including five counts
of identity theft, in a state probe that has spanned more than a year.The State Bureau of Investigation
began looking at Kimberly Nicole Torres, 36, of 102 Indian Trail in
Wendell, in January 2010 after copies of driver's licenses and Social
Security cards were found in her desk.She was fired a month later, and Steve
Abbott, a spokesman for the state Department of Transportation, said
she did not steal any personal information from the state.
Torres was arrested Friday and was in
the Wake County jail under a $275,000 bond Monday evening. Search
warrants allege that she used a DMV computer to apply for payday loans
in other people's names.Once the loans were deposited into
bank accounts, she told investigators, she would withdraw the money,
take a cut and close the account.If convicted on the identity theft
charge, as well as several charges of obtaining property by false
pretense and accessing government computers to defraud and forgery, she
could face up to 27 years in prison.
"She didn't have access to anything
work-wise, anything DMV – such as personal records, drivers' license.
She had no access to that," Abbott said.
It's unclear where Torres might have gotten the Social Security cards and driver's licenses.According to court records, Torres has
a lengthy criminal history, including several convictions prior to
being hired by the state for assault with a deadly weapon and breaking
and entering.
DMV employees are required to have a
background check, Abbot said, but because Torres was hired by the DOT, a
check never happened.
"We do not do background checks. It's
not just DOT, it is all state agencies," Abbott said. "There is no
background check required unless it's a job that would require access to
private information, access to money or other issues like that."
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
California Joins Other States in Placing Restriction on Employers' Use of Credit Checks
One Minute Memo: California Joins Other States in Placing Restrictions
on Employers' Use of Credit Checks
On October 10, 2011, Governor Brown signed into legislation Assembly
Bill No. 22, which generally prohibits employers from using an
applicant's or employee's credit history in making employment decisions.
Prior to this legislation, employers could request a credit report for
employment purposes if they provided prior written notice of the request
to the person for whom the report was sought. Assembly Bill 22
significantly changes this landscape by prohibiting employers from using
credit reports for employment purposes unless the report is used for one
of the limited purposes enumerated by the statute.
To view the full alert, please click on the link below:
www.seyfarth.com/OMM101011/
on Employers' Use of Credit Checks
On October 10, 2011, Governor Brown signed into legislation Assembly
Bill No. 22, which generally prohibits employers from using an
applicant's or employee's credit history in making employment decisions.
Prior to this legislation, employers could request a credit report for
employment purposes if they provided prior written notice of the request
to the person for whom the report was sought. Assembly Bill 22
significantly changes this landscape by prohibiting employers from using
credit reports for employment purposes unless the report is used for one
of the limited purposes enumerated by the statute.
To view the full alert, please click on the link below:
www.seyfarth.com/OMM101011/
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
"Statewide Background Checks Miss Records"
Many
companies think that a statewide background check is more complete than
searching the counties that an applicant has lived and/or worked. "In
some cases, that is not correct." Bill Whitford, CEO of S2Verify.
"Many states are not on a unified court system and rely on the county to
report the records to the state. However, in many instances, this
simply does not happen."
It is important to understand each state and then determine if a statewide is the best search. That is why companies need to contract with knowledgable and experienced Employment Screening companies, like S2Verify. We are amazed at the lack of knowledge among prospects about what they are ordering and how it impacts their business.
In one instance, one of our competitors was selling statewide searches and using a database. However, they weren't informing the company that this was a database search. In fact, they were offering a statewide search in states like CA that don't offer a statewide search.
Here is an article that proves you need to be knowledgeable about each state.
It is important to understand each state and then determine if a statewide is the best search. That is why companies need to contract with knowledgable and experienced Employment Screening companies, like S2Verify. We are amazed at the lack of knowledge among prospects about what they are ordering and how it impacts their business.
In one instance, one of our competitors was selling statewide searches and using a database. However, they weren't informing the company that this was a database search. In fact, they were offering a statewide search in states like CA that don't offer a statewide search.
Here is an article that proves you need to be knowledgeable about each state.
Texas background checks let felons slip through cracks in surprising numbers
September 29, 2011
- Like this? Subscribe to get instant updates.
Courts and prosecutors throughout Texas are supposed to quickly submit convictions for arson, burglary, and more serious crimes but the report by the Texas Auditor's office finds more than a-quarter of the arrests are not showing up on state background checks because local police agencies and county courthouses are not sending that data to the Texas Department of Public Safety.
That means if one felon is convicted, the state database won't include it for months because the local police and courthouses are letting it sit on a shelf for months before sending it to the state to be included in the DPS crime database.
That means if that criminal is applying for a job driving a school bus, or trying to enter the military service, or applying for another sensitive security position, a background check won't show the conviction because the most comprehensive statewide crime database doesn't know about it.
Most background checks, especially those by private employers and small government agencies, do not check records at the local level. They won't scour every single courthouse where an applicant has lived, but instead rely on each state's centralized database of all criminal convictions.
Local police and sheriff's departments are also required to submit information for arrests made for certain crimes, even if the person hasn't been convicted yet. Those are among the crimes not being reported to the state, according to this report.
Today's audito report digs into all arrests made statewide in 2009 and it found that more than a-quarter of the crimes had still not been reported to Texas DPS as of January of this year.
In a February 2006 audit, 71-percent of the crimes were being reported by prosecutors and courts. This time around, those agencies reported 73.68 percent of the arrests made in 2009. That's only a slight improvement.
The audit explains,
"Data in the DPS's Computerized Criminal History System is not complete, and users may not receive a reliable result from criminal history background checks that are conducted based on the data in that system."Even though Texas law requires prosecutors and courts to send that data in within weeks, DPS has no authority to slap a fine or any other punishment for agencies that are letting its criminal convictions sit on the shelves for months or years.
"A significant number of prosecutor and court records are not reported to DPS, which impairs the quality of information that DPS uses to conduct criminal history background checks,"the report continued.
Here's a serious illustration of how bad it is:
State background checks are standard when a new inmate arrives in the state prison system, but when 1,634 inmates showed up for prison or probation in November 2010, they had clean records.
That's right, convicted felons on their way into prison were listed as having no criminal record in the state DPS crime database because the local authorities hadn't yet submitted the information as they're required to do within days.
Some are required to be submitted within 7-days and others must be submitted within 30-days, but it's not always happening at all.
Today's report urges DPS to improve the timeliness and accuracy of the records it receives from local authorities, but it didn't say how that should happen since DPS is powerless to issue fines or any other sanctions for it.
The Tarrant County District Attorney's office is listed as failing to submit records, and the report points out that the Harris County District Attorney's Office and the Harris County District Clerk are also both falling short on submitting details of cases to the state crime database.
Each office said the reason this is happening is because some criminals don't have state identification numbers attached to their records, which causes them to slip through the cracks. If the state ID number is attached at booking or later before trial, they are automatically sent in when there is a conviction or other disposition. If that number is missing, it just doesn't happen like it's supposed to, they said.
They also blamed courts for failing to submit some paperwork about the disposition of some cases. Without that paperwork, those agencies don't know there's anything additional to report to the state.
Between September 1, 2009 and November 30, 2010, there were 65,424 arrest records submitted to DPS that could not be properly matched with their crimes or the outcomes of their cases. That means an arrest may be listed without a conviction, or even that a person may be listed as having one charge against them when they really had 5 serious charges against them.
For those 65,424 incomplete records, the audit says local agencies submitted erroneous data or incomplete data for felonies and misdemeanor crimes. Those all affect how a person shows up on a criminal background check.
DPS agreed with the findings of the audit and promised to work on holding meetings with local government officials throughout Texas to make sure they know how to submit timely and accurate data on crimes.
About 80% of the information is being submitted to the state electronically, while the rest are mailed or faxed.
The audit listed these hard numbers between September 1, 2009 and November 30, 2010:
- Of the 1,115,469 of the crimes that were required to be reported within 7-days, 84.25% actually were (amounting to 939,802 crimes)
- Of the 959,892 crimes that can be reported within 30-days, 76.48% were reported (or 734,138 crimes).
Even when local police and prosecutors do submit the arrest or conviction information, DPS is sometimes reporting a two-month backlog in entering the data into the database if it comes by mail or fax. Staffing and budget cuts are getting the blame.
Friday, July 22, 2011
FTC Issues Report: "Forty Years of Experience with the Fair Credit Reporting Act"
The Federal Trade Commission today issued a staff report,
that compiles and updates the agency’s guidance on the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA), the 1970 law designed to protect the privacy of
credit report information and ensure that the information supplied by
credit reporting agencies is as accurate as possible. A credit report
contains information about a consumer’s personal and credit
characteristics, character, and general reputation and is used to make
credit, employment, insurance and other decisions.
"The employment screening rules and regulations continue to change and this will have an impact on our industry" says Bill Whitford, CEO of S2verify, LLC.
The new staff report, entitled “Forty Years of Experience with the Fair Credit Reporting Act: An FTC Staff Report and Summary of Interpretations,” provides a brief overview of the FTC’s role in enforcing and interpreting the FCRA and includes a section-by-section summary of the agency’s interpretations of the Act.
The FTC is also withdrawing the agency’s 1990 Commentary on the FCRA, which has become partially obsolete since it was issued 21 years ago. The 1990 Commentary was comprised of a series of FTC statements about how it would enforce the various provisions of the FCRA. Since 1990, the FRCA has been updated several times, most significantly by the Consumer Credit Reporting Reform Act of 1996 and the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, known as the FACT Act. Both updates expanded the provisions of the FCRA.
The new staff report deletes several FTC interpretations in the 1990 Commentary that have since been repealed, amended, or have become obsolete or outdated. It also modifies some interpretations in the 1990 Commentary, and adds several interpretations reflecting changes that Congress has made to the FCRA over the years, rules issued by the FTC and other agencies under the FACT Act, statements in numerous staff opinion letters, and the staff’s experience from significant enforcement actions.
Recent legislation has transferred the authority to issue interpretive guidance under the FCRA to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFP. Withdrawing the 1990 Commentary now will ensure that this obsolete document does not transfer to the CFPB.
The Commission vote approving the staff report on the FCRA and withdrawing the 1990 Commentary was 5-0. The report and Federal Register notice can be found on the FTC’s website and as links to this press release. More information for consumers about the FRCA can be found here.
"The employment screening rules and regulations continue to change and this will have an impact on our industry" says Bill Whitford, CEO of S2verify, LLC.
The new staff report, entitled “Forty Years of Experience with the Fair Credit Reporting Act: An FTC Staff Report and Summary of Interpretations,” provides a brief overview of the FTC’s role in enforcing and interpreting the FCRA and includes a section-by-section summary of the agency’s interpretations of the Act.
The FTC is also withdrawing the agency’s 1990 Commentary on the FCRA, which has become partially obsolete since it was issued 21 years ago. The 1990 Commentary was comprised of a series of FTC statements about how it would enforce the various provisions of the FCRA. Since 1990, the FRCA has been updated several times, most significantly by the Consumer Credit Reporting Reform Act of 1996 and the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, known as the FACT Act. Both updates expanded the provisions of the FCRA.
The new staff report deletes several FTC interpretations in the 1990 Commentary that have since been repealed, amended, or have become obsolete or outdated. It also modifies some interpretations in the 1990 Commentary, and adds several interpretations reflecting changes that Congress has made to the FCRA over the years, rules issued by the FTC and other agencies under the FACT Act, statements in numerous staff opinion letters, and the staff’s experience from significant enforcement actions.
Recent legislation has transferred the authority to issue interpretive guidance under the FCRA to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFP. Withdrawing the 1990 Commentary now will ensure that this obsolete document does not transfer to the CFPB.
The Commission vote approving the staff report on the FCRA and withdrawing the 1990 Commentary was 5-0. The report and Federal Register notice can be found on the FTC’s website and as links to this press release. More information for consumers about the FRCA can be found here.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Weakening Job Market
Rise in unemployment applications indicates weakening job market
Nowhere is the fickle economy more evident than in the unstable job numbers, in which an economic snapshot takes shape when jobs data is analyzed, only to change again the following month after a round of fresh data is released.
Another sign of an increasingly weak job market came today, when it was announced that last week the number of people who applied for unemployment benefits climbed by the most in a month.
The Labor Dept. said that unemployment applications rose by 9,000 to a seasonally adjusted 429,000, the second increase in three weeks and the 11th straight week that applications have been above 400,000.
The four-week average for unemployment benefit applications was unchanged at 426,250 last week.
Applications dropped below 400,000 in February and stayed this way for seven of the following nine weeks.
The Washington Post reports that the economy needs to generate at least 125,000 jobs per month just to keep up with population growth. And at least twice that many jobs are needed to bring down the unemployment rate, which rose to 9.1 percent in May.
“We need initial claims to fall back below 400,000 to signal stronger economic growth than the area we seem to be mired in,” analysts John Ryding and Conrad DeQuadros at RDQ told the Post.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Company Settles "Class Action Lawsuit" for $4.3 million
The company failed to follow the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by
first obtaining written consent to conduct background checks and second
they failed to offer the applicants a copy of their report or the Credit
Reporting Agency's (CRA) contact information to obtain a copy.
The proposed settlement would pay the worker that was terminated because of a background check between $2,000 and $4,000 each.
This company was a subcontractor to a large metropolitan school district and provided transportation for children.
Maybe it is time for you to reevaluate how you perform your employment screening, your consent, and how you notify your applicants of the outcome. In addition, you should understand what your current CRA is providing and how it is impacted by the FCRA and State Laws.
Recently, we were preparing a consent for a new client. After reviewing several Fortune 500 companies existing consents, we found NONE of them were in compliance with both the FCRA and the state regulations.
Companies need to understand that these types of lawsuits and actions by the Federal Trade Commission over violations of the FCRA and state regulations will continue.
The proposed settlement would pay the worker that was terminated because of a background check between $2,000 and $4,000 each.
This company was a subcontractor to a large metropolitan school district and provided transportation for children.
Maybe it is time for you to reevaluate how you perform your employment screening, your consent, and how you notify your applicants of the outcome. In addition, you should understand what your current CRA is providing and how it is impacted by the FCRA and State Laws.
Recently, we were preparing a consent for a new client. After reviewing several Fortune 500 companies existing consents, we found NONE of them were in compliance with both the FCRA and the state regulations.
Companies need to understand that these types of lawsuits and actions by the Federal Trade Commission over violations of the FCRA and state regulations will continue.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
The Meaning of Service
I often wonder why we as individuals tolerate companies that lack the
basic skills of customer service. Why do we continue to use a company
even after having a bad experience? Maybe it's because we are simply
to forgiving. Maybe it's because we just don't want the hassle of
moving our business.
Recently we have been growing and have had to look at alternative internet providers. Our current provider has the fastest speed, but the problem is that it is down 40% of the time. So we had a T1 installed, and my partner, who has been dealing with the mess, was on the phone for over an hour. He sent an email and the new provider and the response was "Thank you we will get back with you in 72 hours." What in the world are these people thinking?
However, we have had a great experience with Clear. This is not an advertisement for their product, but a confirmation of their service. Now their product is really good. But let me tell you about our experience.
One day when our service was down, I went by the mall to get an additional router from "Clear." The sales person went above and beyond the call of duty. I needed a another router that day, so he gave me a loner until our new router arrived. Also, when we were installing the router, we had some issues. So what did the salesperson do? He came to our office and installed the router. It would be a great story if it stopped there, but it does not. He came back when we got the new router and installed it as well.
The meaning of "Service" to me is meeting or exceeding the customers expectations. This is something that we strive to achieve at S2Verify. Not only for our clients, but for the applicants and consumers as well. Clearly we can take a lesson from our friend at "Clear."
Absolutely an outstanding customer service experience.
Recently we have been growing and have had to look at alternative internet providers. Our current provider has the fastest speed, but the problem is that it is down 40% of the time. So we had a T1 installed, and my partner, who has been dealing with the mess, was on the phone for over an hour. He sent an email and the new provider and the response was "Thank you we will get back with you in 72 hours." What in the world are these people thinking?
However, we have had a great experience with Clear. This is not an advertisement for their product, but a confirmation of their service. Now their product is really good. But let me tell you about our experience.
One day when our service was down, I went by the mall to get an additional router from "Clear." The sales person went above and beyond the call of duty. I needed a another router that day, so he gave me a loner until our new router arrived. Also, when we were installing the router, we had some issues. So what did the salesperson do? He came to our office and installed the router. It would be a great story if it stopped there, but it does not. He came back when we got the new router and installed it as well.
The meaning of "Service" to me is meeting or exceeding the customers expectations. This is something that we strive to achieve at S2Verify. Not only for our clients, but for the applicants and consumers as well. Clearly we can take a lesson from our friend at "Clear."
Absolutely an outstanding customer service experience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)