Exam 5: Background Checks, References, and Verifying Employment Eligibility
Which of these actions by an employer would most likely result in a claim for defamation?
D
After three weeks in your new position as Assistant Human Resources Director, the HR Director has asked you to take a candidate all the way through the process, from application to interview, to background check. The firm has an opening for an electrical engineer who is proficient with construction blueprints. The engineer will be helping to build the company's new warehouse, which is about to begin construction. Which of the following steps would be necessary to take during the background check?
B
You have been hired as the assistant director of a company's Human Resource Department. The director calls you in and tells you that she is considering a suggestion to the Board of Directors that the company adopt a policy of refusing to give substantive information on employee references. She asks you if adopting such a policy makes sense. What advice will you give to her?
Students answers will vary, but they should note that there is no requirement (other than a service letter requirement in some states)that the company even respond to requests for references. However, some sort of response would likely foster good-will with companies making the request so providing responses should benefit the company over time. Failing to give substantive information may result in other employers also refusing to give substantive information about their former employees.
With the possibility of law suits for providing derogatory or negative information, failing to provide substantive information would certainly reduce the company's exposure. Even though the frequency of defamation law suits is not high and employee successes are minimal, the cost of defending law suits does cause a concern. Substantive references also give rise to the possibility of negligent referral and retaliation law suits if improper information is accidentally transmitted. While these suits are also relatively infrequent, the cost of defense must be paid. The courts have already litigated and decided that failure to give substantive information cannot be an implication that the information, if provided, would have been negative. Therefore, limiting referrals to dates of employment and possibly job titles, without other substantive information would be the safest course of action for the company, although perhaps not the best course of action.
As its name implies, the Fair Credit Reporting Act applies only to reports regarding creditworthiness.
Which of the following is true regarding criminal background checks?
Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, employers must do which of the following?
A project manager applied for a job, and listed his previous employer as a reference. When the prospective employer called, the man who gave a reference for the project manager falsely implied that the project manager was incompetent, even though he had never worked with or supervised the employee, nor checked any employment records. The project manager did not get the new job. If the project manager sues his former employer for defamation, the court will likely rule that:
While doing a background check on a candidate who is superbly qualified for the sales job for which he has applied, you learn that he was dishonorably discharged from the U.S. Army. When you ask him about it, he explains that he was 18 years old at the time, and the death of his father, whom he had only recently met, had a devastating impact on him. He began to drink to excess, often failed to report to his duty station. After his dishonorable discharge, he righted himself, started working, and got counseling. Everyone at your firm who has interviewed him found him to be very personable, and very able, and they're eager for him to start. You've told them about the dishonorable discharge, and it's made no difference to their decision. Should you tell other employees about the dishonorable discharge?
A salesman was to attend a meeting in a nearby city, but as he traveled there in his car, traffic was light, and he arrived about an hour early. Deciding not to waste the time, he went to a nearby shopping center to search for a birthday gift for his son. He found a tablet that he knew the boy would like, and headed out to drive to the building where the meeting was to be held. As he backed out of the parking space, however, he hit another car, damaging the car and injuring the driver. Under the doctrine of respondeat superior , is his employer liable for the accident? Why or why not?
Why is each of the following good legal advice?
a.Background checks must be more extensive when hiring for positions in which unfit employees could do serious harm to others.
b.Employers should document all efforts to obtain information on job candidates, even when those efforts are not successful.
c. Former employers should verify the identities of persons seeking information about former employees, such as by requiring that requests be made on company letterhead.
d.Employers should consider, on an individual basis, the seriousness, job relatedness, and recentness of any criminal convictions before using them as grounds for denying employment.
e. For all persons hired, employers must view documents establishing identity and eligibility to work in the U.S. and record the documents examined on I-9 forms.
A company hired a file clerk, but did not inquire into his criminal history. In fact, he has had several convictions for driving while intoxicated. On a lunch break, he got drunk and assaulted a waitress at a nearby restaurant. If the waitress sues the employer, a court would most likely decide that:
Which of the following is a defense to a defamation claim against an employer?
An employer has the right to check references and generally delve into the background of job applicants, and the applicants have no expectation of privacy if they apply for a job.
In order to avoid liability for negligent hiring, the primary question an employer must consider is:
Which of the following is a true statement regarding employer compliance with the Immigration Reform and Control Act?
Mike is the chair of the management department at a local university and Tom is an ethics professor in that department. They dislike each other immensely due to a number of professional and social disagreements. Mike calls Tom into his office and closes the door. He then informs Tom that he believes that Tom is guilty of plagiarism and also guilty of an improper sexual relationship with Kathy, a 19 year old management student. In fact, Tom is a happily married man who is extremely well respected in the community and has never committed adultery. Deeply believing in ethics, he has never committed plagiarism in his life. Furthermore, he has always been absolutely professional with regard to his student Kathy. Tom vehemently denies these charges and as he gets up to leave, Mike states, "Give me any more trouble and I go public." Tom goes right to his attorney who files a defamation law suit that afternoon.
A former employee of your firm was dismissed when it was suspected that she had stolen from the petty cash account. It could not be proven, but suspicions were strong enough that the firm decided to let her go. She has now applied at another firm, and listed your firm as a reference. What should you do?
Filters
- Essay(0)
- Multiple Choice(0)
- Short Answer(0)
- True False(0)
- Matching(0)