Employment Decisions Archives

More on legal troubles from employer misuse of social media information

Legal experts say that litigation resulting from employer misuse of social media information is likely to rise, at least until more case law is established. And even if the company prevails in such lawsuits, there may be reputational risks as the cases grab national spotlight.

Media sources reported that next week, for example, a National Labor Relations Board judge will rule whether American Medical Response of Connecticut illegally fired a worker after she criticized her boss on
Facebook. In what labor officials and lawyers view as a ground-breaking case involving employees and social media, the NLRB stepped in to argue that workers’ criticisms of their supervisors or companies on social networking sites are generally a protected activity and
that employers are violating the law by punishing workers for such statements. According to media reports, American Medical denied the board’s allegations, stating they are without merit, and that “the
employee was discharged based on multiple, serious complaints about her behavior.” The company added that “the employee was also held accountable for negative personal attacks against a coworker posted publicly on Facebook…”

Media sources reported on another pending case, filed in Georgia against a school district, a former high school teacher is claiming that she was essentially forced to resign over Facebook photos that
showed her drinking alcohol during a European vacation.

And in a case settled in 2009, two workers in New Jersey sued their employer, Hillstone Restaurant Group, after they were fired for violating the company’s core values. According to court documents, their supervisors gained access to postings on a password-protected
Myspace page meant for employees but not managers. The jury found that the employer violated the federal Stored Communications Act and the equivalent New Jersey law, and awarded the employees $3,403 in back pay and $13,600 in punitive damages. Hillstone appealed before the parties reached an undisclosed settlement.

Labor relations pros caution that before taking any adverse action based on social media postings, the employer should consider whether the information could be construed as a complaint or report of inappropriate or unlawful behavior. This includes, but is not limited
to discrimination, harassment, unpaid overtime and other wage violations, or any activities that may trigger an employee’s whistleblower protection.

|Educational Series, Employment Decisions, Judgment, Lawsuit, Social Media|

Lawsuit shows legal risks in using information from social media

Media sources reported that a settlement was reached January 18, 2011 in a civil rights case re C. Martin Gaskell v. University of Kentucky, whereby the University agreed to pay Gaskell and his attorneys $125,000. Gaskell was a leading candidate in 2007 to be the director of a new observatory at the University of Kentucky; however, he was denied employment allegedly in part because of his apparent views on evolution. Media reports and court documents stated that during the candidate selection process, committee members conducted searches on Gaskell on the Internet, and discovered his personal Web which contained an article entitled “Modern Astronomy, the Bible, and Creation” among other notes. The sources also reported that “Gaskell had given lectures to campus religious groups around the country in which he said that while he has no problem reconciling the Bible with the theory of evolution, he believes the theory has major flaws. He recommended students read … critics

[of evolution] in the intelligent-design movement.”

According to the Courier-Journal, the University “acknowledged that concern over Gaskell’s views on evolution played a role in the decision to choose another candidate.” But it argued that this was a valid scientific concern, particularly with regard to the prospect that “Gaskell’s views on evolution would interfere with his ability to serve effectively as director of the observatory. And there were other factors, including a poor review from a previous supervisor and UK faculty views that he was a poor listener.”

|Educational Series, Employment Decisions, Judgment|

Scraped information for sale to employers

Employers legally can’t discriminate based on gender, race and other factors which they may get from social-media profiles, but some indeed are using such data in their employment decisions. Media sources reported that scraping for employment purposes is growing, and that an employment screening company in Florida began offering limited social-networking data, including some that is scraped, about a year ago. Scrapers operate in a legal gray area. Internationally, anti-scraping laws vary, and in the U.S., court rulings have been contradictory. Media reports quoted Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University saying: “Scraping is ubiquitous, but questionable. Everyone does it, but it’s not totally clear that anyone is allowed to do it without permission.”

|Educational Series, Employment Decisions|

No background check was done on Michael Jackson’s doctor

Media sources reported that among several wrongful death lawsuits filed by the Jackson family, is a September 2010 action against event production company AEG Live and others alleging that they are responsible for the singer’s death because his “This Is It” tour contract with AEG created a legal duty to keep him healthy.

In its complaint, among other causes, the Jackson family accuses AEG of “negligent hiring” and retention of Dr. Conrad Murray to care for Jackson instead of his usual doctor. Earlier this year, prosecutors charged Murray with involuntary manslaughter, to which he pleaded not guilty. The doctor is accused of administering the drug Propofol to Jackson without the necessary resuscitation equipment or nursing support, and subsequently causing his death. The ‘Negligent Hiring’ cause of action in the complaint filed in Los Angeles County states:

“In undertaking to hire Murray, AEG performed absolutely no diligence in investigating or checking into Murray’s background, specialties, ability, or even whether he was insured, which it had a duty to do. In choosing to hire and employ a physician to treat Jackson, AEG undertook to act, and it needed to do so reasonably. AEG did not act reasonably and breached its duty.”

“During the course of Murray’s treatment, it became clear to AEG that Jackson was not doing well at all. AEG did nothing to terminate Murray and instead negligently retained him as an employee, and in so doing violated its duty of care. AEG insisted that Jackson continue treatment with Murray and receive no treatment from other physicians, a further breach of its duty of supervision.”

Along with negligent hiring, training and supervision, the complaint calls for unspecified damages for breach of contract, fraud, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. And in the most recent case filed November 30, 2010 in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Joe Jackson is also claiming negligent hiring, training and supervision and negligence by the Murray-affiliated clinics and negligence against the pharmacy (and Murray.) A similar suit filed this past June did not include the pharmacy, and was dismissed.

Shortly after Michael Jackson’s death, ABC News reported that Murray was arrested on domestic violence charges in 1994 after an incident with his then-girlfriend. The doctor was tried and acquitted. When a company fails to conduct a background check, the employer can be held legally liable for a worker, independent contractor or volunteer who causes injury to a customer, co-worker or the general public. Whether the individual was acting within the capacity of the job for which he/she was hired does not matter. The legal theory is that even if an employer did not possess direct knowledge of the liability posed by an employee, the company is legally responsible because the employer should have known about the threat presented by the individual. Currently, fewer than 50% of the states uphold the doctrine of negligent hiring, and the criteria for determining negligent hiring differ from state to state.

|Criminal Activity, Educational Series, Employment Decisions, Lawsuit|

More on credit reports for hiring decisions

According to September 2010 congressional testimony by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), credit checks are a useful tool to “assess the skills, abilities, work habits and integrity of potential hires.” However, SHRM states that only 20 percent of employers conduct credit checks on all applicants. Fifty-seven percent of these employers perform the checks only after contingent offers, and 30 percent after job interviews; 65 percent allow job candidates to explain their credit results before the hiring decision is made, and 22 percent accept explanations after the hiring decision.

A bill in the U.S. House, called the Equal Employment for All Act, would amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to ban the use of credit checks on prospective and current employees for employment purposes, with the following exceptions:

jobs that require national security or Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. clearance;
jobs in state or local government that require the use of credit reports;
supervisory, managerial, and executive positions in financial institutions.

The states of Illinois, Oregon, Hawaii, and Washington already have passed laws to prevent employers from using credit reports in employment decisions.

|Employment Decisions, Legislation|

Massachusetts employers cannot ask about criminal history on initial job applications

As of November 4, 2010, Massachusetts employers are prohibited from asking about criminal records on the initial job application, except for positions for which a federal or state law, regulation or accreditation disqualifies an applicant based on a conviction, or if the employer is mandated by a federal or state law or regulation not to employ
individuals who have been convicted of a crime.

The new law also has two provisions that will become effective February 6, 2012. Under the first provision, an employer in possession of criminal record information must disclose that information to the applicant, prior to asking about it. And similar to the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, if an employer decides not to hire an
applicant in whole or in part because of the criminal record, the employer must provide the applicant with a copy of the record.

The second provision requires employers who conduct five or more criminal background investigations annually to implement and maintain a written criminal record information policy. The policy, at minimum, must specify procedures for (1) notifying applicants of the potential for an adverse decision based on the criminal record, (2) providing
a copy of the criminal record and the written policy to applicants, and (3) dispensing information to applicants about the process for correcting errors on their criminal record.

The law imposes penalties (including imprisonment for up to one year or a fine of up to $5,000 for an individual and $50,000 for a company) for those who request or require an applicant to provide a copy of his/her criminal record except under conditions authorized by law, and prohibits harassment of the subject of the criminal record (punishable by imprisonment of up to one year, or a fine of not more than $5,000.)

|Criminal Activity, Educational Series, Employment Decisions, Legislation|

Illinois Employee Credit Privacy Act (096-1426)

Effective January 1, 2011, the Act will prohibit employers, in many circumstances, from inquiring about or using an employee’s or prospective employee’s credit history as a basis for employment, recruitment, discharge, or compensation. The Act also will prohibit an employer from retaliating or discriminating against a person who files a complaint under the Act, participates in an investigation, proceeding or action concerning a violation of the Act, or opposes violation of the Act. Pursuant to the Act, an employer will not:

Fail or refuse to hire or recruit, discharge, or otherwise discriminate against an individual with respect to employment, compensation, term, condition, or privilege of employment because of the individual’s credit history or credit report.
Inquire about an applicant’s or employee’s credit history.
Order or obtain an applicant’s or employee’s credit report from a consumer reporting agency.

Exceptions to the Act are as follows:

State or federal law requires bonding or other security covering the individual holding the position.
Duties of the position include custody of or unsupervised access to cash or marketable assets valued at $2,500 or more.
Duties of the position include signatory power over business assets of over $100 or more per transaction.
Position is managerial, and involves setting the direction or control of the business.
Position involves access to personal or confidential information, financial information, trade secrets, or state or federal national security information.

The Act also states that nothing in its provisions shall prohibit employers from conducting a thorough background investigation which may include obtaining a consumer report and/or investigative report without information on credit history, as permitted by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

|Educational Series, Employment Decisions, Legislation|

The FCRA and Employer’s Obligations

In recent years, negligent hiring and retention lawsuits have seen a dramatic rise, with settlement payouts averaging over a million dollars. These cases are predicated on the theory that an employer may be held liable for its negligence in placing a person with certain known propensities for criminal or other unfit behavior in an employment position where the individual poses a threat to others. The most common defense against negligent hiring or retention actions is based on foreseeability, which is often determined through a background investigation. Some courts have been more flexible than others in damage awards, but regardless of their stance, the closer the connection between the perpetrator’s dangerous propensity and the actual tortious conduct, the stronger the case against the employer. The law in both negligent hiring and negligent retention also recognizes that a company’s duty to avoid employing dangerous people does not end when an individual is hired–it extends to negligent supervision, negligent training and negligent firing.

Nearly every investigation that touches on employment is covered by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), which defines employment (purposes) as “evaluating a consumer for employment, promotion, reassignment or retention as an employee.” If an employer uses a third party screening service to conduct a background investigation of an applicant or employee, that company is considered a “consumer reporting agency” (CRA) under the FCRA. The CRA’s reports, known as consumer reports, may contain information from educational institutions, professional licensing boards, former employers, courts, credit bureaus, references, motor vehicle departments, regulatory entities, media sources, etc.

The FCRA is a complex federal statute that has been significantly revised since 1970. But the Act’s primary mandate remains that CRAs adhere to “reasonable procedures” to protect the confidentiality, accuracy, and relevance of consumer information. Under its Fair Information Practices, the FCRA has established rules concerning personal information that include rights of data quality (to access, dispute and correct), data security, usage limitations, data destruction, disclosures, user consent, and accountability. The FCRA requires the employer/user to affirm to the CRA that it is in compliance (with FCRA) and has enacted the following directives prior to the initiation of a consumer report:

Verified that there is a legitimate need for requesting a consumer report
Certified that written permission was obtained from the applicant or employee and proper disclosures were provided
Stated the reason for requesting a consumer report
Certified that the information will be used for employment purposes only.

Before any adverse action is taken based on information in the consumer report, the FCRA obligates the employer to provide the applicant or employee a copy of the report and summary of consumer rights prescribed by the FCRA. And if adverse action is taken, the employer must deliver an “adverse action notice” to the affected individual. Further, the employer must certify that it will not use any information from a consumer report in violation of the applicable federal or state equal opportunity laws and regulations.

The FCRA makes a distinction between a “consumer report” and “investigative consumer report.” Its delineation of a “consumer report” is that it is comprised of verifications of facts about education, employment or other claims made by the applicant, while an “investigative consumer report” is a compilation of information about character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living through interviews. Thus, an employer who uses investigative consumer reports must comply with the provisions of the FCRA that apply generally to consumer reports as well as the provisions that are specific to investigative consumer reports which include “clearly and accurately” disclosing in writing that it may obtain the aforementioned information. This notice must contain a statement advising the individual of the right to request additional disclosures concerning the nature and scope of the inquiry, along with a written summary of consumer rights. Also, for an investigative consumer report, the disclosure must be made within three days after such report is requested, while in a consumer report, notice must be given before the report is procured.

The FCRA rules also apply when an employer uses a third party to investigate employee misconduct. The employee must be notified “clearly and conspicuously” and authorize, in writing, the undertaking of an investigative consumer report. If the employer disciplines or adversely treats the employee based upon the information in the report, the employer must provide the employee, within 60 days of the adverse decision, the following:

Notice of the disciplinary action
Name, address and telephone phone number of third party that prepared the report
Statement that said third party had no input into the decision to discipline the employee and thus will not provide information about the action taken
Notice that the employee is entitled to a free copy of the report and can request that the employer state the reason for the disciplinary action.

The FCRA does not apply to investigations of misconduct conducted by internal personnel or by third parties which do not regularly prepare such reports.

Violations of the FCRA can lead to civil and/or criminal penalties for the CRA and the employer. Civil penalties may carry nominal damages (up to one thousand dollars if no actual damages exist), actual and punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs, if there is “willful noncompliance.” Civil penalties for “negligent noncompliance” are confined to actual damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. Criminal penalties may be imposed when a party knowingly and willfully obtains information from a CRA under false pretenses.

Establishing a relationship with a reputable CRA is one of the best assurances of FCRA compliance. An experienced company can provide guidance not just in the legal process of the FCRA, but also instill trust that it has met its related obligations.

|Educational Series, Employment Decisions, Legislation|

Fake your way into a dream job for under $60

The job market is tight and fake-your-career services are in bloom. Buy a Job Reference, which describes itself as a “shameless service,” boasts that in the first six months of 2010, it assisted nearly 400 clients in gaining employment (but links to success stories do not work so maybe the stories are fake too.) For the low price of $59.99, payable through credit cards and PayPal, the company will supply a personalized fake employer name, phone number and address, suitable for any occupation you choose. And if you need a new apartment to go with that new job, for $29.99 the company will set you up with glowing previous landlord references.

CareerExcuse.com, a self-proclaimed “world’s largest network of job reference providers” since July 2009, is more expensive with a $65 set-up fee plus an undisclosed amount for a 30-day answering service, and a $20 monthly subscription. This basic package includes a “professional voicemail system that many banks and large companies use, calls that are returned from voicemail within 24 hours armed with positive references provided by you, and a toll-free number and e-mail addresses for your references.” If you really want to impress a prospective employer, there is a premium plan for $195+ that will upgrade the verifications to a live receptionist. But once you land that dream job, most likely you will have to wait a while before you accrue any paid time off. Guess what? For $35 you can get some bereavement days with CareerExcuse operators standing by to verify that your designated relative is deceased, and avail a real funeral home Web site and address for flower delivery. CareerExcuse apparently wants to be a one-stop shop for all your fibbing needs, as it also provides links to instant “real university degrees.”

According to several Internet sources, including ABCNews.com, Alibi HQ also is or has been in the fake reference business; however, its Web site address, www.alibihq.com, leads only to a spam-type search page. ABCNews.com said in its August 2009 article that Alibi HQ charges $199 for the first 90 days and $50 for each additional month for the fictitious declarations. Mark Stevens, a purported Alibi HQ spokesman, told ABCNews.com that the company, which also offers fake landlord references and fake doctor’s notes, has been operating for several years, and that customer interest in employment references has skyrocketed over the last year (2009) with calls from people seeking Alibi HQ’s services quadrupling.

So how do these companies get away with such slippery handicraft? Each claims that it will not do anything that defies the law, including providing references for loan purposes. CareerExcuse contends that in a segment by KENS-5 in San Antonio, the Better Business Bureau did not question the legality of its services, although it did not give the company a “ringing” endorsement. But legal experts say that such companies and the clients they serve may ultimately find themselves as defendants in lawsuits filed by duped employers.

|Educational Series, Employment Decisions, Fraud|

Belford University: another diploma mill case from our files

So why did the applicant for a professional level position with one of our clients choose Belford University in Humble, Texas to get a Bachelor of Science degree in accounting? Maybe because Belford grants original degrees printed on traditional degree paper with a gold-plated seal which identifies it as a degree from a reputed and reliable institution. Or perhaps because the university offers free three-day shipping on a complete $249 degree package (a 4.0 GPA is $75 extra), consisting of one original accredited degree, two original transcripts, one award for excellence, one certificate of distinction, one certificate of membership and four education verification letters. We will never know for sure. But we do know that the university’s claims on its two Web sites (www.belforduniversity.net and www.belforduniversity.org) of being “an accredited institution recognized by two renowned accreditation agencies for on-line education, namely the International Accreditation Agency for Online Universities (IAAOU) and Universal Council for Online Education Accreditation (UCOEA)” are meaningless as the accreditations are not approved by the U.S. Department of Education. It is a bit suspicious too that on its “.org” site, the links to “University Briefs” are inactive, and thus we cannot find out the details of Belford’s “Clair’s Award for Excellence” and why Clair (spelled without an “e”) is giving out awards.

The Houston Press got on Belford’s haft in 2006 when it exposed the institution as a degree mill, operating from Humble, Texas with an indeed humble office (so humble that it’s non-existent as someone closed its account at the USA 2ME mailbox drop.) An entry in the Wikipedia stated that the degrees are actually mailed from the United Arab Emirates. The Houston Press checked out some of the names of Belford’s professors and its distinguished alums, which include Michael Fonseca, who was “promoted to the post of Divisional Head for Romuna Securities, a subsidiary of Romuna Group.” But the impressive-sounding Romuna appears to have its empire only in the mirage of Belford University.

David Linkletter of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board said that the board reported Belford to the state Attorney General’s office in March 2006, noting that “this is not a legitimate institute of higher education, as no legitimate university offers a complete degree on the basis of one’s life experience…To the extent that Belford University is in Texas, it is operating in violation of the Texas Education Code.” Since September 2005, the code makes it illegal to use a fraudulent or substandard degree for purposes of employment, business promotion or to seek admission to a university.

Despite Belford’s history of bamboozlement, as many as 500 resumes in LinkedIn, including those of a New York-based director of human resources and a CEO in the pharmaceutical industry, boast degrees from this university, according to a February 2010 post on a “consumer ally” Web site.

|Educational Series, Employment Decisions, Fraud|