Do You Trust A Resume?

Author: Rachel Richards, M.A.

According to the United States Department of Commerce, 30% of small businesses fail due to employee theft.^[1] Theft, negligence, and improper hiring practices are often the thorn in the side of every business executive. Lawsuits resulting from negligent hiring practices are handed out with higher price tags, and they are becoming more common as employees and the economy struggle. As such it is even more important to know your employees. In an informal study conducted by Business Controls, Inc., it was found that of the individuals who were reviewed for a pre-employment screening, only 20% had no felony, misdemeanor, or infraction history. It was found that 36% had a driving history infraction, 22% had a DUI, 36% had a misdemeanor and 4% had a felony. 52% of individuals who had one type of record had multiple instances of other criminal or negative driving history. While 36% of applicants denied ever having pled guilty, bonded out, or pled no contest at any point prior, 66% falsely indicated that they had never done so, or did not accurately reflect their history regarding prior convictions. 

When reviewing the resumes of potential hires, you often see the best an individual has to offer. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for employees to over-exaggerate their resume. Bankrate.com offered statistics to suggest that approximately 30% of resumes had some sort of distortion in the information presented.^[2] The most common areas of exaggeration include employment duration, experience, degrees and education received, and job titles. When screening your applicants, be sure the application is completely and accurately filled out. Also, be sure to call educational institutions and employers to confirm titles, experience, and employment duration. Employers should be conscious of concerning information, such as information that does not accurately reflect the details provided on the application, or employees who are not eligible for re-hire. While it has become more common for organizations to release less information when providing employment verification, it does not hurt to ask for information beyond what is offered or to offer to provide a copy of a signed release, which should accompany every application.

Another important search to conduct is of applicants’ criminal history as it can provide the most information regarding misdemeanors, felonies, potential substance abuse history, as well as weapons charges or violent crime. A driving history is also important for those employees who will use a company vehicle, as well as to reflect substance abuse or weapons charges. For applicants working with at-risk populations such as children or the elderly, or for those who will enter customers’ homes, it is important to complete a search of registered sex offenders.

When reviewing an applicant’s pre-employment background, employers should look for a number of specific “red flags.” Felonies, misdemeanors, and driving infractions are easily recognizable concerns. Inflation of employment or education history are concerning in that they may “cover up” unsavory or problematic gaps in the applicant’s history. This may be reflected by employers or educational institutions that are unable to find a record for a former employee or student. Hesitation regarding eligibility for re-hire is a concern, as it may reflect a history of misconduct, performance issues, or other issues that warrant further questioning. It should be noted that resume and background inflation are not limited only to lower-level employees. A 2007 article by Bloomberg Businessweek indicated that approximately 16% of executive resumes and approximately 30% of management-level resumes contain inaccurate information.^[3]

While there are many types of pre-employment background services available to organizations, it is worth noting that the industry is a “buyer beware” market in that you “get what you pay for.” There are many quick internet background services available; however, they do not guarantee a name or information match, which may lead to a lot of data sifting on the part of the organization. Similarly, many of the almost 3,200 counties do not report to a central location, such as a state or national database. As such, many “statewide” and “nationwide” searches are approximately 60% accurate to a name-match only. The allure of these database searches is that they are quick and inexpensive; however, it has led to a false sense of security in the information returned.^[4] Hand-record searches, while more expensive, guarantee accuracy and information matches relevant to the applicant. If you are going to invest the time and money into conducting pre-employment backgrounds, you should be sure to do your homework and invest in a quality product. Spending money at the forefront may save your organization millions of dollars in a negligence lawsuit later.

Of note, two current court cases are testing the extent to which criminal records can be used in a pre-employment background check. Specifically, in Hudson v. First Transit Inc., Adrienne Hudson, an African American woman, was terminated after a background check revealed she had served 4 days in jail for a charge that was subsequently dismissed. Ms. Hudson claims First Transit’s criminal records policy has an adverse affect on African American and Latino applicants and employees. Notably, First Transit does not consider the nature or age of the offense, or the relevance of the offense to the job.

In Johnson v. Locke, Eugene Johnson and Evelyn Houser, who are both African American, were denied temporary employment opportunities with the United States Census Bureau based on arrest records retrieved from the FBI database. The FBI database does not provide information about the nature of the charges or if the charges were subsequently dropped; thus the Census Bureau relies on the applicants to provide information about these records. Both Mr. Johnson, who was provided with inaccurate information from the county court, and Ms. Houser, who was never formally convicted of any charge, were denied employment with the Census Bureau in spite of being otherwise qualified applicants. As such, they claim that the Census Bureau’s hiring practices are inherently discriminatory.

In 1982, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a statement affirming that

“an employer's policy or practice of excluding individuals from employment on the basis of their conviction records has an adverse impact on Blacks and Hispanics in light of statistics showing that they are convicted at a rate disproportionately greater than their representation in the population. Consequently, the Commission has held and continues to hold that such a policy or practice is unlawful under Title VII in the absence of a justifying business necessity.”^[5]

A poll by the Society for Human Resource Management (January 2010) noted that at least nine out of ten HR professionals consider the nature and severity of the criminal activity, the number of convictions, the relevance to the position they are applying for, and the time since the criminal activity, which are the necessary considerations to ensure hiring decisions are in compliance with EEOC guidelines. Further, over half of employers offer the applicant an opportunity to explain any adverse information found before making a hiring decision.

Pre-employment verification has quickly become an industry best practice. It is important to know who you are hiring and what their backgrounds look like. Protect yourself, your employees, and your organization by developing and complying with a pre-employment verification process. Reduce the risk of legal action due to improper hiring and negligence. Finally, be sure that the employees you hire are who they say they are.