Imagine landing a new job, moving your family across the country, and settling into your new life—only to have it all upended because of your last name.

That is exactly what happened to Jodi Smith, a special education teacher in the Bay Area, according to a recent report from ABC7 News.

Ms. Smith had recently moved from Minnesota to California. However, a background check flagged a 2009 DUI conviction. The problem? The conviction didn't belong to her. It belonged to a different person who simply shared the last name "Smith." In fact, in 2009, Ms. Smith wasn't even using the name Smith; she was using her maiden name.

Despite the obvious discrepancy, the false positive caused a bureaucratic nightmare. She was pulled from her classroom, forced to work as a lower-paid emergency substitute, and lost an estimated $24,000 in wages while fighting to clear her name.

This story illustrates a critical flaw in "name-based" background checks and underscores exactly why BackgroundChecks.com requires a Social Security Number (SSN). It isn't just about better data; it’s about meeting the strict standards of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

The Danger of Name-Based Checks: False Positives on Common Names

A false positive occurs when a criminal record belonging to one person is incorrectly attributed to another. As seen in Jodi Smith's case, these errors can be devastating. They cause:

• Loss of income for the candidate.

• Delays in hiring for the employer.

• Unnecessary stress and reputational damage.

All for a mistake that could easily have been avoided.

The Root Cause: Identity Ambiguity

Common surnames — “Smith,” “Johnson,” “Garcia,” etc. — create a high risk of misidentification when background checks rely only on publicly available identifiers such as name and possibly date of birth. Without a more precise identifier, the system cannot reliably distinguish between separate individuals who share names.

In the example above, the background-checking authority eventually discovered the error only after the subject submitted fingerprint records — but by then, the damage had been done.

Why SSNs Are Essential for Reliable Background Checks

At BackgroundChecks.com, we require Social Security numbers for all background checks. That requirement is not bureaucratic busywork — it is a critical step to ensure accurate, responsible results. Here’s why:

• Unique identifier — SSNs (when verified properly) help distinguish between people who share common names.
  
  

• Reduced risk of false positives — Using SSN dramatically lowers the chance that your check will pull up the record of a different person.
  
  

• Faster dispute resolution — When there is a criminal record tied to your SSN, you know it belongs to you. If there isn’t, there’s less risk of wrongful reporting and easier pathway to correct mistakes.
  
  

• Stronger protection for all involved — For employers, institutions, and individuals, SSN-based checks minimize wrongful denials, reputational harm, and litigation risk.
  
  

Consumer Reporting Agencies (CRAs) like BackgroundChecks.com operate under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

Section 607(b) of the FCRA mandates that CRAs must follow "reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy" of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates.

In the eyes of the law—and in the eyes of our company—relying solely on a common name does not meet the standard of "maximum possible accuracy." If a background check provider returns a record for a "J. Smith" without verifying unique identifiers, they risk violating federal law and harming the subject of the report.

What the “Smith” Case Teaches Us

That teacher’s ordeal shows how a background check — when done poorly — can wreck lives. She was credentialed out of a job she had just begun, solely because her last name matched others with criminal records.

If her check had required SSN verification (or fingerprints), this mistake would likely never have occurred.

Here is how the SSN protects both the employer and the candidate:

1. Ensuring Maximum Possible Accuracy: The SSN acts as a digital fingerprint. Even if "Jane Doe" has the same birthday as a convicted felon named "Jane Doe," their SSNs will be different. By using this unique data point, we filter out records that do not belong to your candidate, directly adhering to Section 607(b).

2. Preventing Wrongful "Adverse Action": Under the FCRA, if an employer decides not to hire someone based on a background check, they must follow the Adverse Action process (Section 615). This notifies the candidate and gives them a chance to dispute the findings. While this protection exists, it is a stressful burden for the candidate (as Ms. Smith experienced). Accurate initial checks prevent the need for this process entirely for clean candidates.

3. Uncovering Hidden Records: Conversely, an SSN trace can reveal aliases or maiden names (like Ms. Smith's maiden name, Stanton) that a simple name search might miss. This ensures a complete and accurate picture of a candidate's history.

Our Policy Reflects Reality — Not Inconvenience

We understand that asking for SSNs raises concerns — privacy, data security, etc. But the risks of not using SSN (misidentification, false positives, wrongful denial) are far more significant.

By requiring SSNs, we are not adding unnecessary friction; we are protecting accuracy, fairness, and trust.

Conclusion

The “Smith” case is not a one-off. It’s a concrete demonstration of how incomplete identifiers can lead to serious errors in background screening — and serious consequences for innocent people. At BackgroundChecks.com, our SSN requirement isn’t a bureaucratic hurdle. It’s a necessary guardrail that keeps background checks fair, accurate, and responsible.

ABC7 San Francisco