Buffalo Firefighter May Have Abused His Power in Running a Background Check on a Colleague

By Michael Klazema on 2/12/2014

When William T. Buyers, a firefighter with the Buffalo Fire Department, joined the arson investigation unit in 1999, he had been a veteran of department for 12 years. Like the rest of the firefighters on the squad, Buyers had been subject to a background check when he had been hired. Also like the rest of the employees of the Buffalo Fire Department, Buyers had been perfectly aware that the pre-employment background check was taking place and had given consent to his employers to look into his past. The firefighter figured that, if the department ever required him to undergo further criminal background checks in the future, they would inform him and request a separate authorization.

Therefore, Buyers was quite shocked when he discovered that the Deputy Commissioner of the arson investigation department, had a reputation for running unsanctioned background checks on the men in his unit. Over the past few years, numerous firefighters with the arson unit have made complaints about 
and his alleged habit for running criminal background checks on people set to begin working for his department. However, the Buffalo Fire Department has never done much about those claims, at least, not until now.

When Buyers went digging to find out a little more the unsanctioned screenings, he discovered that he himself had been the subject of an unexpected background check in December 2009; the night before he started with the arson investigation unit, and he was none too pleased about it. Buyers has since filed a formal discrimination complaint with the Buffalo Fire Department, alleging that the Deputy Commissioner ran the background check without proper authorization, and without permission from either the department or from Buyers himself. In Buyer's estimation, Tomizzi is overstepping his boundaries and abusing his power by running unsanctioned background checks, and could be using the background screening system to invade the privacy of people both in and outside of the department.

This background check system in question is actually never meant to run employment screening background checks. Rather, the background check system the commissioner was using to run criminal checks on his colleagues is a criminal background check system maintained by the county. The New York Department of Criminal Justice Services mandates a number of rules for this system, chief among them that it is meant only to be used for criminal investigative purposes. In other words, for the fire department's employees, they are only permitted to use the criminal background check system to look into the pasts of suspected arsonists. Since William Buyers was not under investigation for arson, the background check of him was not only unethical, but also illegal and could potentially cost the Commissioner his job.

Because of the restrictions on the background check system, the system keeps an automatic record of the searches that each user makes. That fact should make it easy for the Buffalo Fire Department to launch an internal investigation into the allegations and to determine precisely who has been running unapproved and inappropriate background checks. The system should also reveal whether or not the accused made a consistent practice of screening his colleagues, something that a local firefighters union has suggested might be a likelihood. The union, Buffalo Professional Firefighters Association Local 282, has jumped onboard with Buyers in his complaint against the commissioner, seeking to defend the privacy rights of firefighters throughout the Buffalo system.


Tag Cloud
Recent Posts

Latest News

  • March 22 Countrywide, states and local municipalities have committed to ban the box legislation, seeking to equalize opportunities in the job market for those with criminal histories.
  • March 22

    Thinking about becoming a firefighter? Here are some of the background check requirements you might face.

  • 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.