A customer recently requested that I help him explain to his boss why we wouldn't sell "an instant background check." Other resource on our website and weblog (here and here) explain the bug with the database-driven groundwork checks, but the reasoning behind our verification policy is worth reviewing.

Many Imperative clients include a multi-jurisidictional database (ofttimes incorrectly chosen a "national database") in their background checks. This is a database of criminal records compiled from various country and canton sources by a private company. While it is useful as a source of potential records, it is not reliable as a definitive report of criminal records. We oftentimes find mistakes in the database records and the database misses more records than it finds. We use it as a condom internet in support of more than reliable county criminal records.

When a record is found in the multi-jurisdictional database, the federal Off-white Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) outlines our responsibilities in ensuring that the data is reliable.

Section 607(b) of the FCRA requires "reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accurateness of the information apropos the individual virtually whom the report relates."

Department 613(a) of the FCRA requires that a consumer reporting agency (the groundwork screening firm) reporting whatsoever potentially adverse public tape in an employment-related groundwork check must either:

  • At the same time the information is provided to the employer, provide the information to the consumer (the person on whom the background investigation is existence conducted), along with the name and address of the employer to whom it is being provided. This is ordinarily referred to as contemporaneous notification. or
  • "Maintain strict procedures" to ensure that the reported information matches the electric current public record. In other words, verify the record with the courtroom.

Contemporaneous notification is the method many inexpensive background screening firms employ to comply with the FCRA, if they try to comply at all. This does zilch to ensure that the information provided by the database is right and puts the onus on the consumer to dispute the accuracy of the information, which is not the expectation outlined in section 607(b) of the FCRA. Additionally, it puts the employer at gamble of making an employment decision based upon incomplete or inaccurate data.

Because nosotros believe information technology is the most legally compliant and the most ethical method, Imperative Data Grouping ever verifies any criminal records found in the multi-jurisdictional database before we report the information to our client.

On occasion, the multi-jurisdictional database will provide criminal records from more than 1 county, requiring that before we report the records, we must initiate research in multiple counties.

In the by, we have sought ways to save our clients the expense of this additional research. However, we have been unable to find a prophylactic way of accomplishing this.

For instance, we might simply verify the records in the canton most recently associated with the applicant, ignoring the other records. The down side of that practice is that the most recent record may be a simple "theft past check" (a hot check) while previous unverified records may be for more serious offenses.

As well, if we just selection the highest level offense for verification, for instance a ten-year-erstwhile felony DWI example, nosotros might terminate upward ignoring a case more relevant to the position for which the person is being considered, such equally a contempo misdemeanor attack instance.

In either of these cases, if the employee was hired considering the verified record did not eliminate him from employment consideration but subsequently injured another party in the class of their employment, Imperative would exist very likely to be named equally a defendant in any subsequent lawsuit because nosotros failed to report some role of the individual'south criminal history.

Some employers might take the position that they but wouldn't hire any applicant with a criminal record. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and multiple court decisions prevent employers from having a policy of eliminating applicants from consideration simply because they have a criminal tape. The EEOC and the federal courts take repeatedly stated that employers must consider the time that passed since the conviction and/or completion of the sentence, the nature and gravity of the law-breaking, and the relation of the criminal offence to the position for which the individual is being considered.

For these reasons and considering we know our clients can't beget cheap background checks, Imperative's policy is to verify all potential records revealed in the multi-jurisdictional database.

Mike Coffey, SPHRMike Coffey, SPHR is president of Imperative Information Group, a Concerned CRA. The information in this article does not necessarily reflect the opinions of Concerned CRAs or its participating companies. Null in this article is intended to be legal communication.