NEGLIGENT EMPLOYMENT VERIFICATION

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE

However, subjective comments, such as "Mr. X wasn't a very good worker," or "We never trusted him and suspected he was stealing," could result in a lawsuit.

Many companies have a policy that prohibits rehiring employees who resign for any reason.  A common question by prospective employers and investigators representing them is, "Is Mr. X eligible for reemployment?"  It is strongly suggested that if company policy prohibits reemployment, that human resources always point this out, rather than simply stating "Mr. X is not eligible for reemployment!" which, of course, implies there is something negative in the file.

It should also be noted that many companies have had problems making terminations involving theft stick.  Since theft often must include intent, businesses can better protect themselves by ensuring that policies and work rules include the offense, "Unauthorized Removal of Company Property."  In cases where an employee is observed stealing a company asset, but claims to have simply borrowed it, intending to return it, the intent to steal does not have to be proven to terminate the employee for the removal of the property.

It should be clearly stated that the above comments are not intended as legal advice, but are simply recommendations based on experience, logic, and good security.  At present, in the U.S. the single greatest cause of death of females in the workplace is homicide.  Allowing such an event to occur by failing to warn a future employer of a foreseeable risk because of a misguided understanding of the real world and an irrational fear of predatory attorneys seems exceptionally naive and irresponsible.

It should also be noted that while conducting security surveys, we always attempt to discover if there is any single event or risk that could put our client's company out of business.  On a recent survey, we determined the only exposure which could cause this was the existing "dates only" referral policy, even though the company was more or less immunized by state law.

In this situation, the client company existed solely to service a single client--a major local employer.  It was felt that if an employee was terminated from the client company for violence, there was a high probability such a person would seek a position at this major business.  Should this person subsequently commit a violent act on the job (and it was learned this predilection for violence was known, but not disclosed by our client because of the policy) the predictable response of the major company would be to cancel the contract--and put our client out of business.  (Of course the Catch 22 here was that they would be open to a lawsuit by such a former employee if they did disclose the reason for termination in violation of their policy.)