Maryland bans the box

Maryland Bans the Box for private employers

NOTE: This article was initially posted in May 2013 and has been updated with new and current information.

As you may know, Ban the Box refers to removing the criminal convictions question from employment applications. Preferring that any discussion of criminal histories be done further along in the application process and in person. Hoping to make the process fairer for applicants.

In October of 2013, Maryland’s first Ban the Box law took effect. The law removed the criminal conviction question from State employment applications. At that time, there were only seven states with similar legislation.  Since then the Ban the Box movement has swept the nation with cities, counties, and states enacting laws. According to the National Employment Law Project, as of July 2019, there were thirty-five states and one hundred and fifty cities and counties that have Ban the Box laws. Thirteen states have laws that prohibit private employers from asking about criminal history on the application. As of January 1, 2020, Maryland became the fourteenth.

Maryland Private Employer law takes effect January 2020

The Maryland legislature passed a private employer Ban the Box law in 2019 only to have the law vetoed by the Governor. In one of the first acts of the 2020 legislature, the Maryland General Assembly voted to override the veto.

The new law states that, before the first in person interview, employers may not ask an applicant to disclose details about whether or not a criminal record exists. This law only applies to those employers with fifteen or more employees too include seasonal, temporary, and contractual employees.

So far only a few major corporations, such as Target and Walmart, have publically “Banned the box”.

Details of the laws procession through the legislative process can be found at http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Legislation/Details/hb0994/?ys=2019rs

Health history discrimination

What an employer asks on employment applications regarding criminal history and how it is used, has long been scrutinized by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). In recent years when an employer asks about criminal history has been at issue (Should the box be banned, February 4, 2013). Employers are also getting caught on health history questions, although the EEOC has been monitoring that form of discrimination for over twenty years.

EEOC and ADA

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, made it illegal to discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The EEOC was created in 1965 to enforce the Civil Rights Act but had to authority. In 1972, Congress gave the EEOC litigation enforcement authority. The American with Disabilities Act was passed in 1990 and the EEOC was given enforcement authority over Title I of the Act, which includes the employment discrimination provisions. The ADA places restrictions on employers regarding asking job applicants to answer medical questions.

EEOC v. Grisham Farm Products, Inc.

In a recent case the EEOC, on March 22, 2016, filed suit in the United States District Court against Grisham Farm Products, Inc. alleging that its employment application violated the ADA. (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Grisham Farm Products, Inc. 16-cv-03105)

In the case, an applicant applied for a warehouse position at Grisham. The Grisham job application contained forty-three “yes or no” health related questions. The questions were similar to what would be seen on an initial doctor visit. The Grisham application inquired whether in the past ten years the applicant has had allergies, arthritis, bladder infections, eating disorders, gallstones, sexually transmitted diseases, etc. The application also inquired about prior hospitalizations, HIV infection, treatment for alcoholism, and whether the applicant consulted a doctor, chiropractor, therapist, or other health care provider in the past two years.

The application’s Health History section stated in large letters, “All questions must be answered before we can process your application”. The applicant did not answer all of the questions and telephoned Grisham Farm. A company representative said that if the health history section was not fully completed, it would not be accepted.

The EEOC claims that the applicant believed he did not have to reveal his medical history to any potential employer. The case is still in litigation.

Review your hiring process

Employers should be frequently reviewing their hiring process. They also need to follow EEOC decisions as these decisions occur frequently and affect the hiring process. As with questions regarding criminal history, there are parameters as to what health questions can be asked and when they can be asked. The EEOC is clear that pre-employment health inquiries can be made only after a conditional offer has been made, if the inquiries are made to all applicants for that job category, and the inquiries are job related and consistent with a business necessity.



May 9, 2016-The EEOC released it's latest guidance on leave as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. Employer-Provided Leave and the Americans with Disabilities Act

A good interview

The interview is a major part of the hiring process. In addition to being encouraged by the EEOC, it gives the employer a chance to get a feel for the applicant’s character and a chance for the applicant to be forthright about their resume and anything in their past that may pertain to the job for which they are applying.  If there is a discrepancy, than a chance to elaborate.

We have clients that are not surprised by the findings of screenings, because they have conducted thorough interviews and learned of past indiscretions prior to conducting a screening. Sometimes though the applicant downplays, tries to hides, or refutes an incident. That is when a more detailed examination of the facts needs to takes place. 

Criminal record findings are based on the personal data supplied by the client. The results are not verification of the record. Once the person is identified with the record the original court records should be retrieved for actual verification.  Life is not as television would have us believe. There is not a single repository for criminal records. Records are not always found in the employers home State. To locate any and all records, queries should be made Federal, State, and even local courts.  ("National" record checks)

Here are some examples of how criminal records work with a good interview. Why are these special? It’s what they didn’t and did tell their prospective employers that makes the point. All were interviewed prior to the request for a pre employment screening. Some were forthright and explained past indiscretions. Others rolled the dice. 

• Fully aware and consenting to a pre employment screening, the applicant admitted to being arrested for possession of marijuana during college, a lesser offense. When the results returned multiple counts of more serious offenses, the applicant continued to deny the convictions. State (Not Maryland) and county record searches revealed more serious charges, but experience tells us that sometimes the charges read more serious than the actual event. Further research of local court records revealed that the charges were accurate. The applicant was arrested and convicted of selling drugs to an undercover detective. A little more than mere possession.
• The applicant said nothing of past criminal activity. Searches revealed multiple felony drug arrests and convictions. However, FCRA guidelines prohibit the use of criminal records more than seven years old in consumer reports. The deal breaker on this one was not the criminal record but truthfulness and character. The applicant arrived at the interview with an apparent injury saying that he was currently on medical leave, expected to return. During employment verification it was learned from the employer that the applicant was fired weeks before for skimming money.
• Maryland and out of State searches revealed no records for the applicant. However, our routine searches of the Federal court system revealed past arrests. Again, FCRA regulations prohibited the reporting of the records. When the report was provided the client said that the applicant had admitted to the past federal charges during the interview process. The client wasn’t worried about the long ago indiscretions, but was more impressed with the applicant’s honesty and character.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission suggests that the report be presented to the applicant and the applicant allowed a chance to address the findings of the report. Before a decision of hiring is made. Allowing the applicant to talk about themselves can yield a wealth of information about the prospective employee. Allowing them a chance to honestly represent their past or defend the findings can yield much more.

Mazzella Investigative Solutions-Services

FCRwhat?

Most of our small business clients have never conducted pre employment screenings. As the economy has tightened the need to hire the best suited candidate has become more of a focus (The cost of a bad hire can be upwards of $50,000). So smaller employers have sought to conduct pre employment screenings to give them more information about their candidates. They know the hiring basics (formal employment applications, conduct interviews, etc) but rarely have they delved into an applicants’ character and past. When they do, most have fallen into stereotypical hiring process traps that put them in jeopardy of a court visit. Last year alone there were millions of dollars awarded in class action suits for Fair Credit Report Act (FCRA) violations.

Some common mistakes employers make are:

• Failure to have a disclosure of the screening separate from the application
• Burying the disclosure of the screening with application questions
• Failure to provide proper pre-adverse action and/or adverse action notices
• Failure to include a copy of the report or a Summary of Rights with the pre-adverse notice

Small business owners don’t have the benefits of human resource departments. They have either just started a business or have been in business for many years. Whichever the case, the Fair Credit Reporting Act and guidelines set by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission are news to them. They are not intentionally trying to violate the rights of potential employees; they just don’t know the rules.

Fair Credit Reporting Act 

The Fair Credit Reporting Act  (FCRA) was passed by Congress in 1996 and went into effect September 30, 1997. As the Act is titled, it was initially passed to regulate the collection and use of credit information by credit bureaus. The goal being to provide consumers a way to access information contained in their credit bureau files. Due to the ever growing amount of incorrect information contained in these files, the act also provided a mechanism in which consumers could dispute the records. Basically, it is designed to protect the privacy of consumers and to guarantee that the information supplied by reporting agencies is as accurate as possible.

The FCRA has been amended several times since being passed. With negligent hiring and privacy issue complaints increasing since the passage of the Act, the FCRA was amended to apply to all consumer type reports. Too include the pre employment screenings completed during the hiring process. A consumer report (the information collected during the pre employment screening}, contains information about the applicant’s personal and credit characteristics, character, general reputation, and lifestyle.

The FCRA also provides procedures for obtaining consumer information and how it is to be used and disseminated during a pre employment screening. The Federal Trade Commission enforces all aspects of the FCRA.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

The FCRA regulates how consumer report data is collected and used. Part of that data are criminal records. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ensures that the information found in the criminal records collected during the pre employment screening is not used to discriminate against the prospective employee. This is where the employers’ fall victim-How they react to and use the criminal record data.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, states that employers cannot reject or fire qualified individuals who have criminal records when the criminal history has no bearing on the individual’s fitness or ability to perform the job. The EEOC is quite clear in its position on employers’ use of criminal background checks for employee hiring and retention: “Using such records as an absolute measure to prevent an individual from being hired could limit the employment opportunities of some protected groups and thus cannot be used in this way.” In making a decision, the employer must consider the nature of the job, the nature and seriousness of the offense, and the length of time since it occurred.

The FCRA states that the applicant has a right to view the information contained in the consumer report and have a chance to dispute the record.  Following this lead, the EEOC encourages the employer to personally interview the applicant and allow them the chance to refute and/or explain the criminal record.

It’s all about being fair. The employer wants to make the right decision to avoid later costs and problems. The applicant is seeking employment. As with the decisions made in other areas of the business, the employer needs to make informed decisions by reviewing and understanding all of the information gathered during the screening process. This review process should include a personal interview so the employer has the chance to hear the rest of the story.

Scroll through our Information and Resources page regarding the FCRA, EEOC, and for helpful information.

Just checking local Internet records is not enough

Service industries that put employees in personal/private contact with clients and/or a client's property are being scrutinized for not only failing to conduct background checks but for doing them improperly. Most recently a national ride sharing company received criticism for both. At first, the company was not screening its drivers, which resulted in employing drivers with violent criminal pasts and questionable driving records. They upgraded their screening process, however, the background investigations were not thorough. Checks were only being made for in State violations with no verification of the person’s identity or the records.

This is just one example of a service industry company not ensuring they have a proper screening process. With Internet access to almost anything, most small employers try to do the background screenings themselves, only checking the local records for which they have access. This is not a thorough background investigation. Much can be missed. Records can exist in all States, at all levels of jurisdictions. Matching records to employees and understanding what the records mean are paramount. (What is the price of not doing a backgroundcheck? July 9, 2013)

Employers need to make sure that their vendors are checking all jurisdictions where the employee lives or has lived, backing up the findings with court records, and verifying that the record is actually that of the employee.

Don’t risk your business by taking shortcuts.

Mazzella-Investigative Solutions

What not to wear

The examination of the California tech explosion of the 1990’s introduced the world not only to the “dot-com” industry but also to casual business attire. The staunch days of business suits gave way to casual Fridays and in some cases, casual every days. Businesses began to realize that employee’s did not have to dress formally for work, especially if they didn’t leave their desk or interface with clients. 

Dress codes

Some businesses have formal dress code policies. Most have some sort of rule, either for safety of image, which is conveyed to employees. The way employees dress and present themselves represents the company’s image. But, if the company does not provide clothing for a uniform way of dressing, then there has to be a policy to ensure the desired image is presented.  Companies can delineate what that image will be.

As the workforce and upper management become younger, dress codes have been relaxing. The business acumens regarding formality and attire are becoming more casual on a daily basis. Formal dress around the office isn’t seen as necessary to completing tasks. A Harvard business school study indicated that dressing down and standing out may offer an air of influence. In retail, luxury store sales staff perceived shoppers dressed in sweats as being more willing to buy than shoppers who wore fancier clothes. The refreshed policies are more about being effective rather than the way one looks.

When policies are written they have to consider other areas of appearance as well as clothing. There’s make up, earrings, piercings, and tattoos. In more recent years policies must also consider religious garb and grooming.

Religious reasons

Dressing a certain way for religious reasons has further defined office dress codes. Employer policies have been tested and the issue has been through the courts. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in March published a fact sheet and a Q&A to address employer concerns with dress codes. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers must make allowances to permit employees to follow religious dress and grooming practices. The EEOC guidance on Religious Garb and Grooming can be found on the Information/resources page of our website.

Having clearly defined and fair policies regarding employee dress provides for a congenial work environment and protects your business.

www.mazzellainvestigations.com/informationsresources.html

#IQUIT

A manager of a small business, who was obviously very busy as she was filling in for a shorthanded staff, told me that one of her employees had quit via a text before the shift was to start. Is this what can be expected of the new generation of workers? I don’t think the finer business schools are teaching students to avoid human contact. The cause may be due to a lack of business training or the product of informality that has beset the up and coming workforce. Either way the Millennial Generation will find a difficult way through their job searches until this form of communication is the norm.

Texting

The ability to text via a mobile phone has been available for the last 20 years although it has only recently hit its stride. Once standardized billing became available and texting became basically as free as a phone call, texting took off. In the last few years texting has become a common verb and replaced actual conversations. Jerry Seinfeld recently said, “Talking has become too much of an effort.”

Texting has availed us of the face-to-face confrontation and is seeping into the business world.

All of us have wanted to avoid an awkward conversation at one time or another. There are plenty of stories of love lives having ended via the text. But it’s not like your ex is going to be interviewed as to your qualifications as a companion. Well, maybe a dater’s resume does get around, but that doesn’t affect your livelihood. Some people will leave jobs on bad terms and then will list that job as a reference. One cannot expect a positive recommendation after quitting through a text.

References

How important are references to a job seeker? Very. References still play a big part in the application process. Most companies ask for character references and almost all ask for at least one contact from a former employer. And the fact that employers are asking isn’t just an empty question. They are checking with the contacts that are listed. According to a survey by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), close to 90 percent of HR professionals do check references and found that a little more than 50 percent of candidates had provided false information.

Whether the barista gig isn’t working or you have a lousy boss, leave any job with professionalism. Even burned bridges have a way of rebuilding themselves and hurting your chances at that dream job years later.

Hiring training

Have you been convicted of a crime?

Screening job applicants to find the most qualified for the job is becoming more difficult. In addition to skills and qualifications, employers are under pressure to also consider safety for their current employees by not introducing a potentially violent person to the work environment. Employers conduct pre employment screenings, which include criminal records, to provide them with the information necessary to make those decisions. However, most employers fall into the trap of making decisions based on the findings of the screening, and not the qualifications or character of the applicant. This type of hiring practice can open the employer to litigation and sanctions from Federal authorities.

Law enforcement strategies of the past twenty years has gone through different variants of zero tolerance policing and stricter enforcement of quality of life crimes. Then there is the ongoing war on drugs. These strategies have increased the chance that employers will encounter an applicant with some sort of criminal record. It is becoming the rarity, rather than the norm, that applicants would have no involvement in the criminal justice system.

A recent study published in the journal Crime and Punishment addressed the number of young people who have some sort of arrest record, other than traffic. The findings were based on an annual Bureau of labor Statistics survey of 7000 young people who answered questions between 1997 and 2008. The authors found that 49% of African American men, 44% of Hispanic men, and 38% of Caucasian men have been arrested by the age of 23. For women the numbers were slightly lower-20% African American, 18% Caucasian, and 18% Hispanic.

Ban the box

The “Ban the Box” movement advocates the removal of the employment application question, “Have you ever been convicted of a crime”. Advocates would rather the applicant have the opportunity for a face-to-face interview before the discussion of criminal records or background checks take place. Ten states currently have statewide “ban the box” laws for public employment applications. Of these ten states, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Rhode Island have banned the box for private employers as well.

There are currently fifty-six jurisdictions in twenty-two states that have enacted ban the box laws. This number is growing annually, in November 2012 there were forty-six. These jurisdictions in the Mid-Atlantic region have enacted laws: Maryland, Baltimore, Wilmington, DE, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, Newport News, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Richmond.

Corporations are beginning to catch on also. In October 2013, Minnesota based Target Corporation enacted policy that removes the criminal question from their application.

The Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) has endorsed the idea of “banning the box”. The EEOC is clear in its position on employers’ use of criminal background checks for employee hiring and retention, stating, “Using such records as an absolute measure to prevent an individual from being hired could limit the employment opportunities of some protected groups and thus cannot be used in this way.” The EEOC specifically addresses the consideration of criminal records in its updated Enforcement Guidance published in 2012. The guidelines suggest that employers consider the nature of the job, the seriousness of the offense, and the length of time since the offense occurred. Also, employers should include an individualized assessment that allows the applicant to speak to the circumstances of the record. The EEOC is specific that criminal records only be used as they pertain to the job being sought and cannot be used against an individual without the consideration of other factors.

Banning is a strong word and does not mean that employers cannot view criminal records during the hiring process. Employers do have to be educated on how the records are used. Realizing the difference between an arrest and conviction and understanding the EEOC guidelines and Fair Credit Reporting Act as they apply to hiring will keep employers from incorrect use of records.  

The evolving school of thought is that criminal records be discussed after the personal interview and review of qualifications. An established hiring process and detailed documentation as to the decisions made all go a long way in supporting the employer’s final assessments.

Don't want to know...

We’ve spoken to several business owners about checking their employee’s backgrounds and driving records. What is most troubling is that many employers want to keep on their blinders. They don’t want to know about their employee’s past. Which might be OK for social issues or even criminal issues. Because the employee’s past does not directly affect their job performance or skills. Many employers hire those who have been released from prison. Which is a good thing. Most State correctional facilities have step down programs and teach vocations, employable skills, and most inmates finish or further their educations.

What is troubling is the failure of employers who employ drivers as their primary workforce to check driving records. Most drivers are entrusted with large capacity passenger or heavy cargo vehicles. The employer is more concerned with the skill the employee possesses than the performance of that skill.  Many say that if they checked into their drivers past they would not have any drivers. Another one is, “We only hire people we know”. Well, how well do you know someone? If your “friend” is forty and you’ve known them for five, or even ten years, that seems like an eternity. However, they’ve had twenty-two years of adulthood before you ever met them.

So maybe the reasoning is the liability the employer would assume if they hired a driver with a questionable record. Would that liability be lessened if the driver was employed without a check and was at fault while driving the company vehicle?

Liability may exist in either scenario and would depend on the industry standard. Some businesses regularly check their employees for certain positions while others do not. Does a business have benchmarks for what is considered dangerous? Just because the employee has driving infractions this does not open the business to liability.  Non-moving traffic violations can be far less of an issue than moving violations. Even moving violations have degrees of severity, such as “failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident” as opposed to “ negligent driving”.

For those who occupation is ”driver”, isn’t their record a performance review of their skills? If you hired a carpenter and were able to access a database that listed carpentry infractions wouldn’t you like to have this information? Record checks can verify resumes or skill levels. This was a simplistic comparison, but if you were concerned only with your employee’s skills, wouldn’t you want to know everything? Why is driving any different?

Here are a few instances of drivers involved in accidents in which it was later discovered that they had previous traffic violations.

•   July 2013-Dayton, OH-Ice Cream truck driver possesses a suspended license and has 27 arrests for a variety of offenses
• February 2012-Chesterfiled, NJ-Driver of school bus involved in fatal accident had undisclosed medical condition that prohibited from driving a bus
• March 2011, New York-Driver of bus in accident that killed fifteen had previous driving violations.

We have discussed this topic with attorneys who have said that they have had different experiences. Most of their clients and companies they know do check their driver’s records.  Regarding liability, it would be more prudent to check your drivers than to not. Just because someone has infractions on their driving record, that alone does not make them a poor candidate to hire. If one of your drivers has an accident and you find yourself in court, it is easier to defend your policy of hiring a driver with violations than not checking at all. 

Mazzella Investigative Solutions

What is the price of not doing a background check?

As a business owner what is the price of not doing your due diligence in regards to employment screening? Is it the expense of making a bad hire and then paying for benefits, training, maybe uniforms? Poor hiring decisions can sometimes add up to three times the salary of the job. Maybe it’s not recognizing that the applicant exaggerated qualifications on their resume. Recent surveys have shown that at least one-third of all resumes have some degree of embellishment.  As the job market gets tighter, applicants will become more desperate to get their resumes thru the electronic filters and to the top of the stack. Not discovering that the applicant has a propensity for violence can result in difficulties in supervising the employee or worse, dealing with a workplace violence incident and the aftermath of legal claims.

Businesses have to follow strict hiring guidelines established by the EEOC, FCRA, and States, while still having the responsibility to provide a safe workplace and hiring the most qualified person. The courts are beginning to see litigation against businesses for improper hiring practices or administrative actions when an employee causes harm. In February 2013, a cabdriver employed by an Alexandria, VA cab company shot and wounded an Alexandria police officer during a traffic stop. The officer is suing the cab company for $10 million in total damages for negligent hiring and negligent entrustment. During the four years the driver was employed and prior years, he had been charged and/or convicted of several violations.

•  Failure to obey a traffic signal, 2007
• Speeding, 2009
• Failure to pay attention, 2012
• Failure to obey a highway sign, 2012
• Tampering with a vehicle, 2011
• Speeding, 2007
• Failure to wear seat belt, 2007
• Failure to pay full time and attention, 2010
• Speeding, 2011
• Failure to obey a traffic signal, 2013
• Violation of good behavior on a misdemeanor offense
• Illegal sale of unapproved equipment
• Misdemeanor assault, 2011

These charges appear to be traffic related in nature and do not show any indication of violent behavior. The case has not been adjudicated or the arguments published so we do not yet know how the driver’s traffic record plays into the act of violence. It does seem that a company hiring this person as a driver should have more closely scrutinized his driving record or have documented reasoning as to why he was hired in lieu of such a record. While the outcome is yet to be determined, the company is having the expense of defending its hiring practice in preparation for court.

It is easier to defend sound, documented reasoning than to have no defense at all. In the hiring of drivers, people feel that driving records are secondary to skill or familiarity. More than once I have heard the excuse, “If we checked records we wouldn’t have any drivers” or “ We only hire people we know”.  Say that to a jury while clicking your heels and maybe the lawsuit will disappear.

With governments converting more data to digital formats and becoming more open with their records, employers also get caught in the Internet trap.  They feel that they can check records themselves. In a recent blog "National" records checks?, April 11, 2013", I explained the process of criminal record data collection and availability. There is no national database for all criminal records and certainly not a single place where you can find all driving records. So employers who feel that they can simply check their State’s available records are potentially missing huge amounts of data about their prospective employee. Data that you can be sure will be revealed in court.

Also necessary is to properly identify the applicant. Not that they are using their twin for the interview, but that they are who they say they are. Many people, either to avoid detection or for personal taste, use different names or variations of their given name. Depending on the situation, whether it is financial or judicial, the name variations can result in different returns during searches. This may not be discovered unless the background check itself reveals the name variations. The DIY employers would miss this.

Pre employment screening is more than a quick check of an applicant’s criminal record. The employer has to have a thorough process that is used equally, fairly, and within hiring guidelines. Many factors go into selecting the correct applicant for the job. Selecting the wrong candidate will cost the employer. You wouldn't buy a used car without having it checked by an authorized mechanic. Why risk your business by not "checking" your employees before hiring them? 
What are you willing to pay for hiring the wrong person? As they say, everyone has their price. What is yours?

Mazzella-Investigative Solutions-Services

Should the box be banned?

The city of Tampa passed legislation in January 2013 to remove the criminal history question on employment applications. Tampa became the latest in a growing list of cities that have passed such laws.  In February 2012 there were thirty-two cities. Tampa now makes forty-six. In our area, Baltimore, Wilmington, DE, and Washington, DC have laws preventing asking about criminal history. Currently, seven states have statewide “ban the box” laws. A bill was introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives in July 2012, but subsequently died in committee.

Removing the question, “Have you ever been convicted of a crime” or any inquiry about criminal history from employment applications has become known as  “ban the box”. The movement of the campaign feels that one’s criminal history should not be a consideration of employment at the time an application is submitted, rather, at a later time during the interview process. It is felt that asking this question on the application reduces the chances of those with criminal records to be employed, thus, allowing the applicant to be evaluated on their qualifications.

As part of the screening process, most employers perform criminal history inquiries. In a survey conducted by the Society of Human Resources Management, 92 percent of their members perform criminal background checks on some or all candidates. It is inevitable that employers are going to come across applicants that have criminal records. The National Employment Law Project estimates that over 65 million Americans have some sort of criminal record. The cost of making a poor hiring decision can cost a business $10,000-$50,000, depending on the level of employee hired.

Employers need to do their due diligence to avoid bad hires. At what point in the process the employer asks about criminal history and what value the employer puts on criminal records over qualifications, are two important points to be considered.

www.mazzellainvestigations.com

Who would you hire?

Who would you most likely hire, someone who has a criminal past or an applicant that has been unemployed for a lengthy duration? Recent polls of hiring managers have shown that being unemployed for two or more years is a less attractive quality than someone with criminal history. Hiring managers stating that it is easier to place someone with a non-felony criminal record. Being out of the workforce for just two years brings into consideration your age and skills that may be outdated or out of touch with evolving technology.

Job applicants leaving correctional facilities often have recent improvements to their education and have learned skills or trades in preparation for returning to the workforce. Six states, Arizona, California, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, and New York, offer the opportunity to receive a certificate of rehabilitation.

Finding work is not as easy as in the past when you could go door to door and speak directly to decision makers. The number of companies utilizing online employment applications grows everyday. Many businesses immediately direct job seekers to their online application. Getting your resume into the hands of the right person is more difficult than ever. Once in those hands you have to impress. A 2012 study conducted by The Ladders job matching service revealed that recruiters spend an average of six seconds reviewing an individual resume. They focus on name, previous position start and end dates, current position start and end dates, current title and company, previous title and company, education.

Even though you may be enthusiastically searching, being out of work may put you into an undesirable category.