INSIDE BACKGROUND SCREENING
How Would the EEOC Guidelines Apply to an Applicant With a Criminal Record for Kidnaping, Carrying a Dangerous Weapon and Calling in False
Bomb Threats? By Kevin Connell, CEO,
AccuScreen.com
Chris Palermo of Pittsburg, NH was arrested after he kidnapped his boss, Jonathan Wolfgram. Palermo forced his boss to drive him to a train station in downtown Boston and to purchase a ticket. to escape outstanding arrest warrants. Incredibly, Palermo, after being arrested in Boston, phoned in bomb threats from his Jail Cell in downtown Boston, which led to widespread panic and the evacuations of two New Hampshire police stations, a courthouse, and his place of employment, Moose Alley Auto. Police were also tipped off that several automobiles could be booby-trapped with explosives, specifically, the vehicles at his place of employ- ment. He was sentenced to serve up to 7 years in the New Hampshire state prison.
This outrageous, yet true story points out the importance of performing criminal background checks on prospective employees before you hire them. Wolfgram, the boss and unfortunate victim in this melee who was kidnapped could have prevented his ordeal by running a criminal background check on Palermo. Had he run a criminal background check, he would have discovered that Palermo had numerous criminal record convictions, as well as several outstanding warrants for his arrest, and accordingly, it is unlikely he would have been hired.
Fast forward to the future and hypothecially speaking Palermo is released from prison and applies for employment. Presuming he was denied employment as a result of a criminal background check and filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC it would be unlikely that the EEOC would pursue the case because with Palermo being a white male he would not be victim of disparate impact which is the predomi- nant premise that the new EEOC Guidance is based on.
To read more, click here
DECISIONPOINT continued from page 15
Did the Board grant the employee’s request to have the dismissal overturned and downgraded?
The Administrative Judge held that the agency did not commit harmful error because, although they referred to Petitioner's actions as a "second offense," the deciding officer credibly testified that he did not actually consider any prior discipline in his decision to remove her. Also, their handbook on maintaining discipline lists removal as a permissible penalty for a single offense of fighting or inflicting bodily harm. In light of the seriousness of the charges and the mitigating factors, the Judge held that removal was an appropriate penalty. Petitioner then sought review by the full Board. The full Board denied review, but issued an opinion concluding that any error in labeling the misconduct as a second offense did not result in harmful error. This was because the deciding official credibly testified that this discipline was not a factor in his decision to remove her. The Board also concluded that Petitioner had not established the existence of a disparate penalty. The dismissal was upheld.
Tracey Roberts-Simmons v Department of Defense, 2011- 3056; September 19, 2011
CALENDAR OF
EVENTS
Anger Management Facilitator Training, Oakland, CA, September 9- 11, 2012, Click here for more information
2012 Canadian Association of Threat Assessment Profes- sional (CATAP), September 24 – 28, Click here for more information
3rd International Conference on Violence in the Health Sector, Vancouver, Canada, 24 – 26 October 2012, Click here for more information
Lone Worker Safety 2012, London, 27th November, Click here for more information
Domestic Violence in the Workplace Conference 2012, October 10 2012, Atlanta, GA Click here for more information
Click here to see more events
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22