|
Many top
executives who scoff at old diehard urban legends such as the
alligators in the sewers, the guy with an ax in the back seat--and
even the commonly believed (but untrue) "Good Luck Mr.
Gorsky" comment which allegedly followed Neil Armstrong's
"One step for man" lunar transmission--have inexplicably
bought into the equally erroneous notion that providing true, but
negative information on former employees opens them up for a
lawsuit.
In fact, company policies which provide for disclosing only dates of
employment and nothing else may provide exceptional and unnecessary
exposure to litigation in many venues--not just from future
employers, but from past employees as well.
For example, a person terminated for documented violence, proven
theft, confirmed drug use on the job or proven fraud or embezzlement
could obviously pose a substantial risk to subsequent employers or
future coworkers. If an adverse event occurred in the future
where this former employee repeated the unacceptable activity
occurring at the former place of employment, it could be said the
event would have been foreseeable--and therefore prevented--if the
former employer had been more candid in responding to reference
requests.
Some companies unaccountably, go so far as to work deals with
employees who have demonstrated their dishonesty or violence,
perhaps fearing wrongful discharge suits. Rather than being
terminating for cause, these miscreants are allowed to resign.
As a part of such deals, they may even leave with vaguely worded
reference letters.
In many venues failure to provide a reasonable amount of information
on a former employee who has demonstrated violence, drug use,
serious dishonesty or even substantial sexual harassment is more
that just socially irresponsible, it is grounds for a successful
lawsuit by subsequent employers who suffer losses caused by such
employees. Negligent referral and other litigation of this
nature is on the increase.
(In some areas, of course, even the former employee can be sued by
the future employer in cases involving compelled self publication.)
There are still a few venues where a business is clearly immune to
suits by future employers when consistently providing no employment
verification information except dates of employment. In these
venues, however, exposure still exists from the former employee.
When a company policy prohibits divulging anything but employment
dates, this is usually clearly understood and adhered to by human
resources employees. Normally such a policy is well known to
all employees and in many cases it is spelled out in employment
contracts and personnel manuals.
However, any experienced investigator knows that when conducting a
background investigation on an applicant, the information obtained
from human resources will be pretty basic. Self-starters and
otherwise exceptional employees will often be just numbers to these
folks, as will the less desirable workers; and it is usually
impossible to distinguish between potentially exceptional assets and
liabilities.
|
|
