+1.866.723.2287

+1.866.723.2287

Employment Decisions

Bienville University not so bien

In our second diploma mill case this year, an applicant for a professional level position with one of our accounting firm clients claimed a bachelor of business administration degree from Bienville University in Baton Rouge, LA. Our research analyst quickly discovered that the university was shut down by state action several years ago, but subsequently began peddling degrees in Mississippi for $5,000 for the BS program and $7,500 for a master’s program (according to an Internet “rip-off” posting.) A colorful, official-looking Web site for Bienville University still can be found at http://www.3cdf.com/3rdwebs/bu3/menu/menu.html but its pages for various information categories are not active. An entry in the Wikipedia said that Bienville University was exposed as a diploma or degree mill in a 2003 report by KVBC News 3, as it was never recognized or approved by any accreditation agency of the US Department of Education.

And there is more…Bienville University’s founder, Thomas James Kirk II (also known as Thomas McPherson) was the operator of several other fraudulent higher education institutions (diploma mills), including the University of San Gabriel Valley, Southland University, and LaSalle University (Louisiana.) He was indicted for fraud in 1996 and, after a plea agreement, was sentenced to five years in a federal prison.

|Educational Series, Employment Decisions, Fraud|

What is pretexting and can it be used in background investigations?

Pretexting is the practice of obtaining someone’s personal information under false pretenses, and it is against federal law. In addition to the Federal Trade Commission Act which generally prohibits pretexting for sensitive personal information, under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passed in 1999, it is illegal for anyone to:

  • use false, fictitious or fraudulent statements to obtain customer information from a financial institution or directly from a customer of a financial institution;
  • use false, fictitious, fraudulent, forged, counterfeit, lost, or stolen documents to obtain customer information from a financial institution or directly from a customer of a financial institution;
  • ask another person to obtain someone’s customer information using false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or using false, fictitious, fraudulent, forged, counterfeit, lost, or stolen documents.
|Educational Series, Employment Decisions|

What’s wrong with using information from Facebook, MySpace, Friendster or personal Web sites for hiring decisions?

Some companies believe this is a cheap way to obtain information about an applicant. Unfortunately for the applicant, this type of background check is not covered by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) if it is performed by the employer. And since the sites are not mandated to investigate and correct errors, the employer may miss out on hiring a qualified candidate. Additionally, much of the information posted on these sites cannot be discussed in an interview, and if not handled properly, the employer may be sued for claims under various anti-discrimination statutes, ADA, privacy laws, and state “off-duty” conduct statutes. Employers who use third-parties to conduct background investigations by searching social Web sites and Internet postings must comply with the FCRA, and thus explicitly state in the background check authorization that social networking and/or other such sites will be accessed. The FCRA does not prohibit employers from obtaining consumer reports that contain information compiled from Internet sites; however, employers are required to disclose to the applicant that the information was the basis of an adverse employment decision (Id. § 1681b(b)(3)(B)(i)(I).

Despite the liability exposure and unreliability of the information, various surveys show that employers do use information from social networking sites and blogs to support their decision to hire or disqualify an applicant. The most common causes for disqualification include:

  • Information or photographs about drinking or using drugs
  • Provocative or inappropriate photographs or information
  • Poor communication skills evident in postings
  • Bad-mouthing previous employer or fellow employee
  • Misrepresentation of qualifications
  • Discriminatory remarks related to race, gender, religion, etc.
  • Unprofessional or provocative screen name
  • Indications of criminal behavior
  • Posted confidential information from previous employers
|Educational Series, Employment Decisions|

Update on Senate Bill 1045 (OL 2010. Ch. 102) which amends Oregon Revised Statute 659A.885 that restricts employer’s use of credit history in employment decisions

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries published its final administrative rules regarding Senate Bill 1045 (OL 2010. Ch. 102). The regulations go into effect July 1, 2010. The Oregon Revised Statute 659A.885 specifically prohibits an employer from obtaining or using credit history for employment purposes of an applicant or employee unless that credit history information is “substantially job-related, and the employer’s reasons for the use of such information are disclosed to the employee or prospective employee in writing.” The state of Oregon set up a hotline (at 971-673-0824) to explain the new regulations. The regulations can also be viewed online at http://www.oregon.gov/BOLI/LEGAL/docs/RulesSoS0052010.pdf

|Educational Series, Employment Decisions, Legislation|

The Fallacy of a National Criminal Database

Scherzer International is occasionally asked about the availability of a non-law enforcement “national criminal database” as some of our competition offers this service. The fact is that no such database exists.

    The FBI maintains the only comprehensive national criminal database and access to it is restricted to law enforcement agency use. The information offered by private vendors as a “national criminal database” is incomplete, unverified and unreliable for any purpose other than as a supplemental tool.  The reason that these databases are of such little value lies in the fact that there is no central criminal record database for the United States other than the FBI. Even the FBI records are not totally accurate as they are based on fingerprint data which is not always submitted in a consistent or usable manner.

    There are also wide variations in the reporting standards and requirements of individual states as well as local jurisdictions within the states. Thus, although a “hit” may appear in this type of database, it should only be used as an indicator that there may be a criminal record. Further research must be conducted to verify this information. Similarly, if there is no “hit” in a national criminal database, this does not mean that the subject has a clean criminal record as the FBI estimates that less than half of all state criminal records make it into any national database. Based on the variation in record accuracy and reporting it is clear that a “nohit” result in a “national criminal database” is of virtually no value. As a reminder, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) requires that Pre-employment investigators always follow all “reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy” of information we present to the client. (FCRA 607b) FCRA Section 613 (a) (2) also requires “that the information is complete and up to date.” Pre-employment investigators should keep these requirements in mind whenever a Consumer Report is prepared. The requirements of the FCRA do not apply to the Business Background or

    Prospective Client Investigations. The Fallacy of a National Criminal Database

    |Educational Series, Employment Decisions|
    © 2012- SCHERZER INTERNATIONAL | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
    Go to Top