Background Screening Case Study

In todays society, criminal background checks are a common practice among small to large businesses. Background checks are a crucial step within the hiring process for numerous company’s. They provide important and unique information on potential candidates to employers. For some, employers want an idea on who they are hiring and if they would be a reliable asset to the company. Businesses who deal in the retail, educational institutions and security firms must be extra cautious when hiring new personal. For some company’s, hiring a potential candidate with criminal history could cause public outrage or lawsuits in the future. In 2012 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued guidelines on how past conviction records can

be used in employment decisions. EEOC also states that a past convicted criminal background must be job related and consistent with the businesses protocols when hiring employees.
Quantitative data shows that arrest and incarcerations rates are high with African American and Hispanic men. Therefore, many of these potential applicants might have a high probability of having some sort of criminal past that could affect their ability to receive or hold a job. Due to these statistical results of incarcerations there may also be a conflict with the Civil Rights act of 1964, Title VII. Small to large employers need to take extra precaution when hiring or even firing employees when exercising their right to use background checks. The EEOC does not indicate when an employer can screen current employees, as well as dictate what company regulations can be put into place within the companies polices and procedures.
This certain type of law is evolving within our society.

With many cases already being filed by the EEOC will provide some sort of guidance on how a company can more thoroughly conduct background screenings on their candidates and current employees. A company should have the right to conduct background screenings on their employees and potential candidates anytime they desire. Having the government interfere on how an employer can hire an employee interferes with our capitalistic economy. Background screenings are sometimes even crucial to a companies bottom line when taking into consideration of certain costs like insurance. Some insurance company’s will not cover certain potential liabilities for an organization if they have an employee with a criminal history. For example, a trucking company’s insurance policy may state that they will not cover any accidental damages if they have an employee who has a past arrest for driving under the influence and is operating one of their fleet vehicles. A background check I believe is a necessity when hiring employees and even screening current employees at random. This provides a strong structure of internal controls for an organization, and helps reduce a possibility of law suits and loss of capital for an

organization.
As a human being, I strongly believe in second chances and in some cases third chances. However, I firmly agree with the Wall Street Journal that businesses and hiring managers ought to have the right to decide if they too believe in second chances, moreover a company should not feel pressured in hiring a candidate that does not meet the companies polices. An organization needs to protect its public image from any type of unethical practices, which includes its employees. For example, a daycare or a hospital might have polices that consider any type of criminal background to be a threat to its organization, and some company’s may consider only certain type of offenses to be a threat to their operations.