Ohio Home Health Worker Indicted on Rape Charges Had Previous History of Assault

By Michael Klazema on 12/4/2014

Officials with the Ohio Department of Health say that the rape of a 17-year-old girl in Delaware County would have been prevented had proper background check protocol been carried out. The young girl in question was sexually assaulted by a home health aide working with her family. The aide in question, a 31-year-old male, had been hired to help the family care for the girl's older brother. Allegedly, the suspect touched the girl inappropriately with his hands and mouth.

The health aide doesn't have a criminal record in Ohio, but he was convicted of assaulting another woman in North Carolina four years ago. Such a charge would likely have disqualified the man from candidacy for any home healthcare position. However, the charge was mistakenly overlooked, and from the looks of it, it was missed because someone failed to run the proper background checks.

Indeed, a Health Department spokeswoman said that the state of Ohio requires background checks for home health workers to look through records from the past five years. By default, these criminal screenings start with checks of records just in the state of Ohio. If the health worker in question has been employed in Ohio for five or more years, then their prospective employers can stop after the state check. However, if the worker moved to Ohio in the last five years, then their employer needs to go one step further and obtain background checks from other states in which that worker has lived.

In this case, the health worker had only been working in Ohio for four years, which means that background checks should have been run in other states. Had this protocol been properly observed, the man's assault conviction (and the 55 days he spent in jail as a sentence for that crime) would have been discovered. Evidently, though, only state checks were run, so employers didn't know about the man's criminal record. As a result, he was allowed to get a job as a home health worker, and by connection, harm a young and defenseless victim in her home.

The worker was arrested, indicted on two counts of rape, and jailed under a $100,000 bond. He will likely face prison time for his crime. More questionable, however, is what will happen to the man's employer, Atlas Home Health Care. The company has so far declined to comment about the incident, but it's fairly clear that they failed to follow state policies regarding employee background checks. Some sort of fine from the state, or even a civil case from the victim, could plague the company in the coming months.

Overall, this case just underlines the need to run thorough background checks in all situations. If you run a company, you obviously need to make sure you are following all local, state, or national background check guidelines. More than that, though, you need to consider the position you are hiring for. In this case, the employer was looking to hire a person who would be going into people's homes without supervision. Such a work environment demands the most thorough criminal and sex offender background checks possible, whether or not they are required by law.


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.