Could Better Screenings Have Prevented a Baton Rouge Case Where a Janitor Raped a Student?

By Michael Klazema on 1/1/2015

On November 23, 2013, a janitor at a Baton Rouge middle school allegedly pushed a 14-year-old girl into an empty classroom and forcibly raped her. The student didn't report the case for several months, which means the former janitor is only just now facing charges. The twist is that the 31-year-old African American man is already in the middle of a 10-year prison sentence for auto theft. In other words, the rape appears just one more crime in the life of a man who can only be classified as a criminal. And yet, he was allowed to work in a middle school, among students, and even passed a background check.

The question is, were the checks as thorough as they could have been? Or could better (or additional) screenings have flagged the janitor as a dangerous man and stopped the rape from ever occurring?

The janitor worked at North Banks Middle School, but he was not actually an employee.Rather, he was a contract worker employed by a janitorial company in the area called Millennium Consulting Network. That company, in turn, was contracted by Aramark, a firm entrusted with providing maintenance and janitorial services to the schools in the area.

In other words, the chain of responsibility for screening the janitor was a long one. With such a convoluted hiring chain, it would have been easy for background checks to go overlooked. That's not what happened in this case, though. On the contrary, Aramark was completely on top of things, and reportedly ran the same checks on the janitor in question that are run on all teachers in the state. These screenings included a fingerprint criminal check through the Louisiana State Police Department.

When Aramark ran a background screening of the janitor, the checks ultimately came back clean: the man had no criminal convictions on his record. As it turns out, he did have a number of arrests. both in the spring of 2011. One of the arrests occurred because the man was caught driving a stolen milk truck; the other came for possession of drug paraphernalia that suggested he had a habit for doing crack cocaine. Both charges were evidently dropped, which means they didn't come up on a background check. The man was hired to his janitorial position later in 2011.

Of course, no one can be blamed for not knowing about the man's arrest history. Per the EEOC, arrest reports should not be used to make hiring decisions because they do not prove guilt. Still, there were other checks that Aramark or the North Banks Middle School could have run to find out that the janitor in question was an unsavory individual.

For one thing, the man was facing charges for auto theft at the time that the rape occurred. He had been arrested for auto theft on March 31, 2013, and his sentencing hearing was set to take place on December 1. Would North Banks Middle School or Aramark have allowed the man to continue work had they known he was facing a felony conviction?

Furthermore, at his sentencing hearing for the auto theft crime, the janitor asked the court for leniency, saying that he was addicted to crack cocaine and needed to go to rehab rather than prison. He said that if he had been in the correct frame of mind, he never would have committed the theft. If Aramark or North Banks did regular drug tests on employees, the man certainly would have been flagged as a danger to students, he would have been dismissed, and he never would have had the chance to assault a 14-year-old girl. Schools may take criminal background checks more seriously than most employees, but perhaps they aren't the only checks that schools should be running.


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.