These days everyone has become enamored with the concept of criminal background checks, and with good reason. They absolutely help organizations make informed hiring decisions and mitigate risk in the workplace. However, there is an age-old practice that many hiring managers have recently chosen to de-value or outright ignore: The Employment Verification. Some have done so because they just didn’t have the time to do it or because they don’t care about past employment. Others think that the information provided from past employers is so watered down that it’s not worth the exercise. Consider this, my company, employeescreenIQ finds a 56% discrepancy rate between what an applicant says about past employment and education compared to what we find from their past employers. Common discrepancies include gaps in employment, salary, job responsibility, etc.
This post will dwell on the logic that employers are hesitant to release useful information. Yes, it is an increasing trend by employers to reveal very little about past employees. Why? It takes time and what they say can expose them to potential liability from the former employee. We’ve all heard stories about an employer getting sued by their former employee because of information provided that hurt their chances of employment. Now, let me introduce you to another trend: employers are getting sued for what they do not say. Now here’s a pickle: the employer can get sued for what they do and do not say? Check please!
It’s true. In certain cases, employers are being held accountable for not telling a prospective employer about past aberrant behavior on the job that is being repeated in the new job. No, that doesn’t apply to not divulging things like starting and ending salary. It has to be a pretty egregious omission to rise to this level. Case in point, check out this story about a California Police Officer that was fired from his department for Sexual Harassment. Evidently, this officer displayed this same behavior and more at his former law enforcement job and this information was not shared with the hiring department when the verification was conducted. This situation is ripe for a lawsuit. The argument will be that this officer would have never been hired has they had this information.
This very topic was raised by Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) president, Susan Meisinger at an impromptu lunch we had 3 1/2 years ago. I was unaware of this issue at the time and was eager to learn more. To my surprise, it has been a very quiet topic because there have not been any impactful court cases that clearly define what should and should not be shared. However, employeescreenIQ’s Rob Thomson has written on of the most concise articles I have seen on this topic:
Employment Verifications: Less May No Longer Be More
As great as this article is, it still doesn’t offer any guidance on best practices in this regard. This is not the fault of the author. Sooner rather than later, there will be more defined rulings as litigation increases.
So what does this mean for you? My recommendation is to keep conducting employment verifications. Even the most tight-lipped employer will usually:
- Confirm Employment
- Provide Job Title
- Confirm Dates of Employment
Other commonly shared information may include:
- Starting and Ending Salary
- Starting and Ending Job Responsibilities
- Reason for Leaving
If you catch the right employer you might even get:
- A Supervisor Interview
- Eligibility for Future Employment
- Attendance
- Attitude
- And More
Leave a Reply