Holes in Screening Methods Lead to Vulnerability

Most companies and institutions that practice applicant background checks and doing so because they believe in creating a safe and comfortable work environment. Once a worker is hired, however, background checks for criminal activity are not routinely conducted.

Mount Anthony Union High School regularly screens employees before hiring them. Shawn R. Pratt was screened prior to his employment as a paraprofessional. Charges against Pratt for aggravated sexual assault on a child under 10 and lewd and lascivious behavior with a child are still pending. During Pratt's six year employment at Mount Anthony he racked up several misdemeanor charges including assault and marijuana posseson. His criminal history accrued while he was employed and without the school's knowledge.

The school is not required to run background checks on currently employed individuals, in fact, they are regulated against doing so by the state of Vermont. Health care institution in Vermont have that right, but there is no generally accepted procedure in place.

Joel Cook, the executive director of the Vermont chapter o the National Education Association said, "The purpose of the law is to provide school information about people they are considering hiring and keep bad actors out of the system and away from children. If you have someone in your employ and they get in trouble ... I think we believed that in small town Vermont - and all of Vermont is small towns - more than likely, you'll know about it."

Not a very efficient process for insuring the safety of the children attending Vermont schools.

It is unknown how many state's have laws such as Vermont's on the books. It might be time to reconsider the background checking process after employment.

Read more...

Insider Posts Personally Identifiable Information and Threatens Lives

Hired in August of 2001, Mr. Steven William Sutcliffe refused to provide the HR Department of Global Crossing Development Company with his Social Security Number. A criminal background search later revealed he failed to disclose his criminal records as well. Mr. Sutcliffe was terminated immediately.

Upon termination, Mr. Sutcliffe began picketing Global Crossing carrying a sign bearing the address of a website he launched against the company. “On this website, Defendant displayed Global Crossing employees’ personal information, including payroll information, social security numbers, birth dates, and residential addresses, with some of this information hyperlinked to an article about identity theft.”

On that website, Sutcliffe posted over 1000 of his former co-workers Personally Identifiable Information (PII) including payroll information, home residences, and social security numbers with links to identify theft information sites. When served with a restraining order, Sutcliffe posted threats against the agent who served him, “Our paths are now crossed and we are forever joined . . . to deal with that I am going to make you a one time offer. If I never see or hear from or of you again, I will forget you . . . . However, if I do ever hear your name mentioned against me ever again I will personally add you to my domain list. I think you understand the issues now enough to understand what this means. If I ever see you near my family again, and I know how to stalk too, I will kill you. That’s my offer.”

Sutcliffe was found to be subject to federal subject-matter jurisdiction for the interstate transfer of PII, a serious federal charge. The case is in appeal, but Global Crossing could have avoided the situation all together had they completed proper background examination prior to employment. Further protections, such as information documentation and security to protect employees, effective controls and exit procedures, as well as technology controls to limit accessibility would have gone a long way to prevent Sutcliffe from inflicting the damage he did.

Read more...