Lab Scandal Shows that Background Checks Must be Thorough

By Michael Klazema on 1/21/2013

A lab technician at a Massachusetts drug lab recently admitted to falsifying drug analysis reports and ignoring proper lab procedures. During the subsequent investigation, police found that she had not only not followed proper procedures but had also deliberated tampered with samples. Since much of the lab’s work involves criminal cases, the employee’s malfeasance has the potential to cast doubt in every one of the 34,000 cases wherein the testimony of the drug company was involved.

Investigations revealed that the employee had never been subjected to a complete background check. While much of her personal information was verified, her employment history and educational background were not. This could have been because the master’s degree in chemistry that she had professed to hold was not a job requirement. She apparently performed her work with reasonable competence, the tampering notwithstanding (and how long she had been doing that is still a matter under investigation), so her employer’s suspicions were never aroused.

The impact on the lab could be catastrophic. They could be held both civilly and criminally liable, and at the very least, could be forced to re-test thousands of lab samples from the last ten years. Of course, there is also the question as to whether or not the court will seek a new provider of drug lab services in the light of this scandal. Losing that business could be fatal to the company. Certainly, this scandal has compromised its reputation. If the company had done a more thorough background check on this employee, such as checking her academic and professional references, this huge problem could have been completely avoided. Now, it’s certainly true that an employee can pass even a completely thorough check and still act in bad faith or dishonestly. Verifying everything that an employee says about herself for truth and accuracy provides a measure of the overall truthfulness, or inclination to lie, of that employee as well as an assessment of her character. An employer that verifies the accuracy of information on a resume, whether or not that information is relevant to the job vets the employee’s character as well as the employee. As the malfeasance of one employee can destroy the reputation of the entire company, it’s vital to know everything you can about all employees you currently have or will hire.

The solution is to use only a reputable, painstaking, and thorough background check service such as A company that seeks to gather accurate information on its employees and potential employees must use a provider that is diligent in its background searches and reports. uses such advanced tools as the U.S. AliasSEARCH to ferret out aliases and assumed names via SSN searches and the OffenderOneSEARCH to uncover violent, drug, and sex offenses. They also have the ability to verify education claims and references, so your company can be sure you’re getting exactly who you paid for. The use of only thorough and accurate background check services helps to insulate a business from potential liability as well as feel confident about the qualifications and honesty of its workforce.

About - - a founding member of the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS®) and cofounder of the Expungement Clearinghouse - serves thousands of customers nationwide, from small businesses to Fortune 100 companies by providing comprehensive screening services. Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, with an Eastern Operations Center in Chapin, S.C., is home to one of the largest online criminal conviction databases in the industry. For more information about backgroundchecks’ offerings, please visit



Tag Cloud
Recent Posts

Latest News

  • March 20 Employers who use E-Verify must follow the proper steps and procedures when they receive a “tentative non-confirmation notice” from either the Social Security Administration or Department of Homeland Security. Failure to follow the proper procedures can cost employers both time and money. 
  • March 20

    Four Department of Commerce employees are out after their background checks resulted in security clearance denials. All four had worked high-ranking positions for months despite incomplete background checks.

  • March 15 As more states legalize the recreational use of cannabis, they contend with the emergence of new industries surrounding marijuana cultivation and production. 
  • March 14 In most cases, it is easy to determine where an issue might show up on a pre-employment background check. Citations for traffic violations or reckless driving charges will appear on a motor vehicle record check. Verdicts in a civil court case will show on a civil court background check. And criminal convictions—from petty theft to violent felonies—show up on criminal background checks.
  • March 13 How many years back do employment background checks go? This question can have multiple different answers depending on the situation.
  • March 13 A new bill in Florida would require landlords of apartment complexes to present tenants with verifications of employee background checks to give them peace of mind the people working in and around their homes are trustworthy.
  • March 08 Police officers working with the University of Texas at Arlington recently arrested a man who had avoided police capture on a warrant out of Oregon for nearly two decades. The man, whose real name is Daniel Charles Ray Hanson, spent those 17 years using a variety of fake names and identification documents to move around the country, often engaging with educational institutions under false pretenses. Police say Hanson regularly went by at least three different aliases. He sports a rap sheet that stretches back to an arson conviction in 1995. 
  • March 07

    The Future of EEOC Guidance in Texas Is Up in the Air

    The EEOC issued guidance in 2012 warning employers about the dangers of enforcing categorical policies to bar candidates with criminal histories. That guidance is not enforceable in Texas thanks to a recent court ruling.

  • March 05 Vermont is the latest state to restrict employers’ access to and use of social media accounts of employees and applicants. 
  • March 01 In an age of "industry disruptors" turning established business models on their heads, companies such as Uber and Lyft rely on a unique workforce of individuals outside the traditional employer-employee context. Uber calls them "partners" while other businesses refer to them as "independent contractors," the official classification these individuals use for tax purposes. Recently, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) revealed they had warned a business, Postmates, for misclassifying their staff as independent contractors. In the NLRB's determination, these individuals were employees.