Background Checks White Paper

Pre-Employment Background Investigations
Often, employers are interested in obtaining information regarding the background of

prospective employees. A background investigation may cover a variety of areas, depending on

an employer’s specific concerns. A background investigation is not a guarantee but, depending

on the job, can assist an employer in making an offer of employment. There are numerous

companies that specialize in pre-employment background screening. Generally, these companies

are not responsible for the results, or incorrect or incomplete information that they receive from

providers. Further, the manner and extent of a background investigation is subject to the

discretion of these companies, unless the employer makes a request for specific information.

The most common types of investigations, and the legal issues related to each, are set

forth below. Keep in mind that a release is needed from each applicant to obtain this

information, and in some cases two separate releases are necessary.

Drug and Alcohol Screening

Virtually every employer explicitly prohibits the use, possession, distribution or sale of

drugs or alcohol in any work setting, as well as the misuse of prescription or over-the-counter

drugs. Nonetheless, the federal government has reported that 73% of current illegal drug users

are employed. Thus, many companies wish to go further and conduct pre-employment drug and

alcohol screening.

Screening may be by blood draw, urine analysis (sometimes combined with a

breath/alcohol test), or hair follicle analysis. A blood test is the most invasive form of screening

and is therefore more susceptible to invasion of privacy claims. It is also the most expensive for

employers. Urine analysis is still the most common and most cost-effective form of screening.

DISCLAIMER: Cooper & Walinski publishes this bulletin to provide information about new developments in the labor
and employment industry. It is not intended as legal advice, nor is it a solicitation for prospective clients. If you are seeking
legal advice, you should consult an attorney who is familiar with your particular circumstances. Use of the information
contained in this bulletin will not establish an attorney-client relationship. Such a relationship can only be established to the
extent an attorney at Cooper & Walinski expressly agrees to undertake the relationship. © Cooper & Walinski, LPA. May
not reproduce without permission. All rights reserved.

1

Although subject to tampering, under carefully controlled procedures, it is generally very

effective. Hair follicle testing is gaining in popularity. Unlike urine testing, hair follicle testing

can detect drug use in the last 60-90 days. Hair testing gets its biggest advantage from the fact

that the hair strand becomes a permanent record of drug use whereas urine is quickly excreted

from the body. Hair follicle testing frequently identifies more drug users than does urine testing.

However, it takes several days for the hair to grow out long enough to be included in a testing

sample. Therefore, a hair follicle test is not appropriate for post-accident or probable cause

testing. In these circumstances, urine testing is more appropriate.

The following considerations should precede any decision to engage in pre-employment

drug or alcohol testing:

• The type of job. Some jobs (involving transportation or safety-sensitive positions) are
particularly suited to this testing (in fact, testing is required by law for some positions
before and during employment), and some (office work) are less so. Consider also
whether employees are in positions where drug and alcohol abuse would be difficult to
detect (employees who work at home, traveling salespersons, etc.).

• Cost. Consider the number of applicants, turnover, and frequency of hiring.

• Community. Job applicants who can't pass drug/alcohol tests tend to apply to companies
that don't require workplace drug testing. You cannot afford to be the only employer in
your community that does not test. But if most employers do not test, it may not be
necessary.

• Effectiveness. Prospective employees who are recreational drug users will generally be
able to refrain from use prior to the time of the test, and the length of time that
drugs/alcohol remain in the system is widely known. Therefore, employers may only
effectively screen out seriously addicted or completely uninformed/unintelligent
applicants (which may be sufficient to justify the testing for some employers).

Drug / Alcohol Screening and the ADA

The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) does not protect an employee or applicant

who is currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs. 42 U.S.C. § 12114.

© Cooper & Walinski, LPA. May not reproduce without permission.

2

The ADA prohibits medical examinations and certain medical inquiries prior to an offer

of employment. An unlawful inquiry is one that is “likely to elicit information about a

disability.” But an employer is permitted to ask questions directed at an applicant’s ability to

perform job-related functions. Also, an employer is specifically permitted to conduct pre-

employment drug and alcohol screening. In response to a positive drug test, employers may

validate the results by asking about lawful drug use or possible explanations for the positive

result other than the illegal use of drugs. Disability-related questions are still prohibited.

Applicants who take drugs under medical supervision may not be required to disclose their

medical condition before a conditional offer of employment has been given. Harrison v.

Benchmark Electronics Huntsville, Inc., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 632 (11th Cir. 2010).

Criminal Records Investigations

This is widely used by employers, and the cost varies directly with the number of

jurisdictions searched. Records may be searched on the federal level (often through

fingerprinting), on individual state levels, and by county. An FBI records check covers criminal

conduct throughout the United States, which is more accurate, but also more costly, more

intrusive, and it may take longer to receive the results. Unfortunately, there is no country-wide

system of compiling state records, and many states do not have centralized recordkeeping.1 As a

result, an employer may need to pay for a search in all individual counties to complete a full

statewide search. Even then, results are not guaranteed as the effectiveness of each county’s

reporting and recording varies. Also, an applicant who has lived in a variety of jurisdictions

1
Some states are working to make such records more accessible to the public. For example, in February of 2003,
the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction opened an online database for public access to the state’s
criminal records. Also, the state’s various courts have made their records available to the public online. Although a
county-by-county criminal records search may be required, the Ohio government now provides a more convenient
and practical way of accessing criminal records from a number of sources.


3

would require a search of every jurisdiction to be complete, and even then, crimes committed in

other locations would not be included.

Another important consideration is that federal law, and most states’ laws, prohibit

consideration of past arrests. This is because minorities tend to be arrested at a disproportionate

rate, and an arrest does not equate to guilt. Many criminal record providers include information

on arrests anyway, and it is incumbent on the employer to show that no arrests were considered

in making a hiring determination. Many states also prohibit any inquiry concerning convictions

that have been expunged, or set forth a period of time after which a conviction may not be

disqualifying.

Some states expressly indentify convictions that preclude employment with access to

certain vulnerable individuals (such as children or the elderly). Certain employers will need to

take those prohibitions into account. Convictions should not in all cases disqualify applicants,

however. Employers should consider the nature of the offense as compared to the job, the

seriousness of the crime, and how recently it occurred. For example, hiring a forklift operator

who had a conviction for shoplifting as a juvenile many years earlier is probably not a concern.

On the other hand, any crime of theft or dishonesty, at any time, may be relevant when hiring a

bookkeeper. Any type of physical abuse would probably preclude any caregiving position. An

employer must consider the job and the specific information regarding a conviction individually,

for every applicant. An employer may never consider arrest information, no matter how recent,

how frequent, or how serious the allegation.

Potential benefits of a criminal records investigation include:

• Precluding employment may prevent harm to another individual, employee or customer.
It also may protect the reputation of the employer by avoiding any negative publicity that
could follow such an incident.


4

• Conducting criminal background checks may provide the employer with a defense to
subsequent claims of negligent hiring, breach of duty to protect or provide a safe work
environment, or other causes of action. The employer may be able to assert that, by
conducting the criminal background checks, it exercised reasonable care to prevent the
harm.

Potential risks of a criminal records investigation include:

• Performing criminal background checks exposes the employer to potential liability for
negligently performing the task and thereby facilitating the injury of a third party by an
employee who was not properly screened or precluded from having access to the injured
person. Having assumed the duty to perform the checks, in cases where no such duty
existed, may expose the employer to liability for negligently performing or failing to
perform that duty. Similarly, the employer may face claims and criticism for failing to
warn others of a potentially dangerous employee.

• The use of criminal background checks may unfairly impact minorities.

• Obtaining a criminal background check response which reflects no convictions may
create a false sense of security, given the questions surrounding the accuracy and
completeness of the background checks, their limited scope, chance for errors, and
variation of offenses by states.

Each employer must weigh the potential risks and benefits.

Example

In El v. SEPTA, the plaintiff claimed that an employer’s hiring policy unnecessarily
disqualified job applicants because of prior criminal convictions – a policy he argued had a
disparate impact on minority applicants because they were more likely than white applicants to
have a criminal record. The Court noted the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s
(“EEOC”) policy that an applicant may be disqualified from a job on the basis of a previous
conviction only if the employer takes into account: (1) the nature and gravity of the offense; (2)
the time that has passed since the conviction and/or completion of the sentence; and (3) the
nature of the job held or sought. However, the Court held that even a bright-line policy of
disqualification can be consistent with business necessity (and therefore lawful) if it can
distinguish between individual applicants that do and do not pose an unacceptable level of risk.
The Court found that the employer’s policy of excluding all violent offenders was therefore
consistent with business necessity. 479 F.3d 232 (3rd Cir. 2007).

Financial / Credit Information

Employers sometimes want to conduct credit investigations, but this is a very problematic

area. The Federal Bankruptcy Act prohibits employment discrimination based on the fact that a


5

person has been bankrupt, a debtor in bankruptcy, or is associated with someone who was

bankrupt or a debtor in bankruptcy. Also, the EEOC has found that the refusal to hire an

applicant because of poor credit status can be problematic because minorities and women tend to

have poorer credit records and a lower socioeconomic status generally. For this reason, the

EEOC views with suspicion any investigation into an applicant's financial background, including

inquiries as to bankruptcy, car ownership, home ownership or wage garnishments, unless it is

directly related to the position (e.g. auditor). Any inquiry regarding finances should be carefully

conducted, in compliance with the law. This line of inquiry should only be considered if it is

job-related.

The first consideration as an employer, for any employment requirement (especially

concerning credit or financial issues) is whether the requirement adversely affects a particular

group. This is known as “disparate impact” (meaning that a particular group is excluded from

employment at a higher rate than other groups). Because of the negative impact of credit

requirements on minorities and women, it has been relatively simple for litigants to demonstrate

adverse impact. This is sometimes done with only a simple citation to census statistics in the

United States which demonstrate that minority groups have a larger percentage of persons below

the poverty level than whites.

Once an assessment is made that a certain requirement is adverse or “disparate,” an

employer would then have the burden of showing that the requirement has a “manifest

relationship to employment.” In other words, an employer must demonstrate a business

necessity to the workplace. A business necessity can be demonstrated only if the requirement is

predictive or significantly correlated with important elements of work behavior which are

relevant to the successful and efficient performance of the job(s) at issue.


6

To do this, an employer would need to analyze the job(s) at issue, considering the actual

tasks performed. The employer would next need to “validate” the credit or financial

requirement, ensuring that it was necessary for success on the job. Even if an employer

determines that this is the case, the requirement could still be unlawful if it is determined that a

comparable requirement would be valid and have a less adverse impact. This type of

requirement is more likely to be upheld if the position responsibilities include:

• discretion or judgment in extending credit, lending authority;

• review or supervision of collection and/or workout functions;

• access or ability to control large dollar amounts or wire transfers; and

• significant discretion or authority in other financial matters.

It is least likely to be upheld for entry level positions. And, any employment decision should

consider the reasons and circumstances for the credit or financial shortcoming (i.e., previous

good credit, subsequent divorce or medical situation).

Examples

In Wallace v. Debron Corp., the plaintiff was discharged after his wages were garnished
for a second time within a twelve-month period. The defendant conceded that its facially neutral
garnishment policy subjected a disproportionate number of blacks to discharge from
employment. The court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, holding that
employers are prohibited from establishing policies with respect to successive garnishments
which have a disparate impact on blacks. 494 F.2d 674 (8th Cir. 1974).

Similarly, in Howard v. Continental Illinois Natl. Bank and Trust Co., the plaintiff
alleged that she was not hired by a bank because of her poor credit rating. She argued that as a
black woman, she belonged to classes that tend to be poor, and therefore have a higher
probability of receiving a poor credit rating. The court agreed that, upon a proper showing, a
plaintiff could establish that the use of credit ratings in hiring decisions could have an unlawful
disparate impact on minority job applicants. Summary judgment was still proper, however, as
the plaintiff failed to present statistical evidence that blacks and women were more likely to
suffer from poor credit ratings. Also, the court deferred to the bank’s contention that its policy
of requiring good credit ratings from certain employees was job-related. 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
11923 (N.D. Ill. 1983).


7

Other courts also require plaintiffs to present statistical evidence when making such a
disparate impact argument. In Freeman v. Atlantic Refining & Marketing Corp., the plaintiff
alleged that the defendant’s reliance on credit reports for hiring or promoting had a disparate
impact on blacks. To make out a prima facie case, the court held that the plaintiff had to make a
statistical presentation comparing the qualified persons in the labor market with the persons
holding the jobs at issue. Here, the plaintiff had no evidence other than what he termed a
“common sense” argument that the credit requirement disparately impacted blacks because
blacks are generally poorer than whites and must therefore have more bad credit reports than
whites. Without any evidence to support such a stereotype, the plaintiff could not meet his
burden of proof. 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5345 (E.D. Pa. 1994).

Releases for Criminal and Credit Investigations

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) regulates consumer reports, specifically those

that are obtained by a current or prospective employer for employment purposes. A consumer

credit report is defined in the FCRA as “any written, oral or other communication of any

information by a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumer’s credit worthiness, credit

standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of

living” used for employment purposes.

Whereas a consumer credit report bears on a consumer’s credit worthiness, an

investigative report provides information on the individual’s criminal background. Both types of

reports are treated the same under the FCRA and are collectively referred to as “consumer

reports.”

The information contained in these reports comes from consumer reporting agencies,

which are agencies that regularly engage in the practice of “assembling or evaluating consumer

credit information or other information on consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer

reports to third parties…”

Employers often base decisions to hire, promote or retain employees or applicants on the

information contained in the consumer reports. The FCRA requires employers to comply with


8

certain requirements prior to obtaining the reports or before taking any adverse employment

action based on the report (such as not hiring).

Obtaining a Consumer Report

To fully comply with the law, employers must do the following to obtain a consumer

report from a consumer reporting agency:

• Provide a clear and conspicuous separate disclosure to the applicant/employee
that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes;

• The disclosure must be made in writing before the report is procured. This can be
done at the time of application or at a later time before the report is actually
requested; and

• The applicant or employee must authorize the report in writing by signing a
release before the report is procured.

The disclosure and release may be one document, but the disclosure must be separate from the

application form. Nothing else can be included in the disclosure and release document.

A consumer reporting agency cannot furnish a report to an employer until the employer

certifies that it has given the required notice and received written authorization from the

employee or applicant to obtain the report. The employer must also certify to the agency that it

will comply with the requirements if it subsequently uses the consumer report as a basis for

adverse action against the employee/applicant.

Example

In Kelchner v. Sycamore Manor Health Ctr., the plaintiff alleged a violation of the FCRA
after she was terminated for failing to sign a blanket authorization entitling the employer to
obtain her credit report in the future. The court noted that under the FCRA, an employer may
obtain a credit report for employment purposes if certain conditions are first met. The court
denied plaintiff’s claim, holding that the plain language of the FCRA authorizes the employer to
obtain an employee’s written authorization at “any time” during the employment relationship.
The court also found that the FCRA does not prohibit an employer from taking adverse action
against an employee or applicant who refuses to authorize the employer to procure a consumer
report. 135 Fed. Appx. 499 (3rd Cir. 2005).


9

Adverse Action

Before taking any adverse action (a decision not to hire, or any other decision adverse to

the employee/applicant) based on the contents of the consumer report, the employer must:

• Provide oral or written notice of the intended adverse action (written is the better
option due to the protection and verification it provides);

• Provide a copy of the report to the applicant/employee (this allows the consumer
to check for inaccuracies in the report and to contact the agency to make the
necessary corrections);

• Provide a statement of the employee’s or applicant’s rights;

• Provide the consumer reporting agency’s name, address, and telephone number
(including an available toll-free number); and

• Provide a statement that the consumer reporting agency did not make the decision
to take the adverse action and is unable to provide specific reasons as to why the
adverse action was taken.

The Federal Trade Commission has stated in an advisory opinion that a period of five (5)

business days is a reasonable amount of time between the notice of intended adverse action and

the actual conduct.

Contents of the Report

Finally, the FCRA sets forth information which is no longer available or included in

consumer reports:

• Bankruptcy suits which are over ten (10) years old;

• Suits or judgments which are over seven (7) years old or in which the statute of
limitations has expired, whichever is longer;

• Paid tax liens which, from the date of payment, antedate the report by more than
seven (7) years;

• Accounts placed for collection, which antedate the report by more than seven (7)
years; and


10

• Arrests, indictments or convictions which, from the date of disposition, release or
parole, antedate the report by more than seven (7) years.

These exemptions do not apply to an individual whose expected salary will be seventy-five

thousand dollars ($75,000.00) or more.

Employer Liability

Any employer who willfully fails to comply with these requirements will be liable to the

employee/applicant for actual damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. The FCRA

limits “actual damages” to an amount not less than one hundred dollars ($100.00) and not more

than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). An employer who obtains a report under false pretenses

or knowingly without a permissible purpose is liable to both the consumer reporting agency and

the employee/applicant for the actual damages sustained or one thousand dollars ($1,000.00),

whichever is greater.

Example

In Cassara v. DAC Services, Inc., the plaintiff brought suit under the FCRA alleging that
the defendant failed to adopt appropriate procedures to ensure the accuracy of the reporting of
plaintiff’s employment history in a DAC-prepared report furnished to prospective employers.
The court held that if the plaintiff could prove that DAC failed to adopt reasonable procedures to
eliminate systematic errors that it knew about, or should have reasonably been aware of,
resulting from procedures followed by its member employees, and that this failure resulted in
distribution of inaccurate reports that caused the plaintiff injury, then the defendant could be
liable to the plaintiff in damages. 276 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir. 2002).

Legal Actions And Other Protected Activity

Most employers would likely be interested in knowing whether applicants have ever sued

prior employers for any reason, or filed administrative claims, such as workers’ compensation

claims. While this information is often a matter of public record, it is completely prohibited as

part of any pre-employment inquiry. If employers or prospective employers become aware of


11

this type of information, it must be completely disregarded. It must never be a part of a hiring

decision.

Past Education and Employment History

One of the least expensive and most effective ways to screen applicants is to verify and

investigate past education and employment history. Also, with a proper release, this is a line of

inquiry with virtually no risk of liability. Obviously, a more senior-level position or a position of

increased responsibility will justify a more in-depth inquiry. However, every prospective

applicant’s reported education should be verified.

In most cases, the verification is free, as it generally involves a phone call or fax and very

little time. Although schools will usually not release student records due to confidentiality, they

can release “directory information” which typically includes name, address, dates of attendance,

degrees earned, and activities. It may also be possible to verify an applicant/employee’s

standardized test scores. Even though an employer may not require a certain degree or test score

for an employment position, most employers would be advised to avoid hiring an applicant who

lied about his or her education history.

It is said that the best predictor of future success is past performance. Employment

history is also inexpensive to investigate, very effective, and virtually risk-free with a proper

release. Even employers with very restrictive reference policies will often answer the question

of whether they would rehire the applicant/employee. Also, specific questions about any

incidents of violence in the workplace can be asked, and are probably relevant to all employers.

Again, this line of inquiry will be more thorough for more senior positions and positions of more

responsibility. But even an entry-level position merits verification of education and

employment.


12

Examples

1) Education History

Employers may expose themselves to liability under the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act (“ADEA”) if they require an education history simply as pretext to weed out
applicants over a certain age. This was the plaintiff’s allegation in Cady v. Miss Paige, Ltd. In
this case, the defendant employer defeated the plaintiff’s claim by providing a legitimate, non-
discriminatory reason for requiring job applicants to include their high school graduation dates
on its application form. Because high-school diplomas were required for the jobs in question,
having applicants disclose their high school attendance dates facilitated the verification process.
2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7613 (N.D. Ill. 2004). It is best, however, not to ask for an applicant’s
date of graduation. It is generally unnecessary for verification purposes.

2) Employment History

Verification of an applicant’s employment history is not only inexpensive, effective, and
virtually risk-free, but a failure to do so could sometimes lead to a risk of employer liability for
the applicant’s future acts. For example, in Griffin v. City of Opa-Locka, the plaintiff filed suit
against a municipal employer alleging deliberate indifference for its failure to investigate the
background of an employee that had sexually harassed the plaintiff. To impose liability on a
government employer based on a hiring decision, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the entity
disregarded a known or obvious consequence of hiring the applicant. Although a cursory check
into the employee’s prior employment history would have alerted the City employer to prior
complaints of sexual harassment, the City ignored its own policy and failed to conduct a
background check. The court affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the City was properly liable
for sexual harassment committed by the employee. 261 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2001).

Government Contractors’ Adverse Impact Analysis Requirement

Government contractors face additional hurdles in utilizing any testing or other pre-

employment selection procedures. The Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures,

41 CFR 60-3.1, et seq. (the “Uniform Guidelines”) mandate that employers assess the impact of

their selection procedures on the hiring, promotion, or other employment of members of any

race, sex, or ethnic group. The Uniform Guidelines apply to tests and other selection procedures

which are used as a basis for any employment decision. They require recordkeeping and analysis

of employment decisions, better known as “adverse impact analysis.” An employer is required

to keep records which will disclose the impact that its tests and other selection procedures have


13

on employment opportunities of persons by identifiable race, sex and ethnicity. 41 CFR

60-3.4B.

80% Test

The common initial test for adverse impact is the “80 percent” or “four-fifths rule.” The

80 percent rule merely establishes a numerical basis for drawing an initial inference of adverse

impact and for requiring additional information and investigation. A selection rate for any race,

sex, or ethnic group which is less than 80 percent of the rate for the group with the highest rate

will generally be regarded as evidence of adverse impact. In such a case, further analysis is

generally required using refined data and statistically valid tests.

Standard Deviation Test

When the 80 percent rule indicates a potential adverse impact, it is necessary to perform a

test of statistical significance. The Standard Deviation Test, based on a level of statistical

significance of two (2.0) or higher, is a method recognized by the Office of Federal Contract

Compliance Programs (OFCCP) to indicate that systematic discrimination may be occurring

unlikely by chance.

Important Recordkeeping and Adverse Impact Analysis Considerations

1. Applicant. Based on court decisions, it is defensible to argue that an applicant is an
individual who: (1) is minimally qualified for the job at issue; (2) applied for the opening
in question; and (3) is considered by the contractor for the opening in question. For those
individuals that apply electronically, the OFCCP recently defined the term “internet
applicant.” To meet this definition, an individual must satisfy all of the following
criteria: (1) The individual submits an expression of interest in employment through the
Internet or related electronic means; (2) The company considers the individual for
employment in a particular position; (3) The individual’s expression of interest indicates
that he or she meets the basic qualifications for the position; and (4) The individual at no
point in the recruitment process (prior to receiving an offer of employment) indicates that
he or she no longer is interested in the position.

2. Tracking Applicants for a Specific Job Opening. The suggested practice is to always
identify applicants in relation to a specific job opening.


14

3. Applicant Self-Identification Form. To comply with the obligations to maintain a record
of the gender, race, and ethnic background of each applicant, applicants should be
provided a self-identification form that is separate from the application. The form should
explain that the information is being requested for compliance purposes only and that
neither the information provided nor the failure to provide information will be used in
making employment decisions.


15

Background Checks White Paper

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Background Checks White Paper

Background Checks White Paper