Yakima County Employee Arrested for Forgery Never Went through a Background Check

By Michael Klazema on 2/23/2015

The local government of Yakima County, Washington is considering new background check regulations for its workers after an office technician in the county's drug court was arrested for mass forgery. The office worker in question, hired back in 2010, allegedly forged roughly $8,000 worth of court vouchers. Worse, the county has said that she never underwent a background check.

The woman gave out the vouchers to drug court defendants as part of her job with the county. These vouchers are intended for buying gas and clothes so clients can make it to court hearings and look presentable in front of the judge. The office worker is now being accused of forging 54 of these vouchers between December 2014 and January 2015. She used the county's money at Kmart, buying diapers and other personal items. She is facing both first-degree theft and identity theft charges for the crime.

Interestingly, the office worker has two felony convictions on her record for previous forgery-related charges. She was charged with both offenses back in 2002, and spent about a month in jail total for the crimes. A background check could have uncovered those convictions and disqualified the woman from employment consideration with Yakima County”especially for a job involving control of monetary vouchers. This case is essentially a textbook example of when it would be most appropriate for an employee to reject an applicant based on background check findings.

There's only one problem: Yakima County never ran a background check on the woman before hiring her in 2010. Even stranger, officials say that they didn't run a background check because of EEOC regulations. Evidently, the county feels as if they could get in trouble with the federal organization just for running background checks on all employees and applicants.

As a result, Yakima County only screens some of its departments, such as local law enforcement or the treasurer's office. According to a report from the Yakima Herald, the county's HR director said that the criteria for deciding which departments get background checks and which don't is based on whether or not there is "a clear relationship between a criminal background and the job being sought." Evidently, as of 2010, the drug court wasn't a department where the county could establish that kind of relationship.

Essentially, this situation just sounds like a misinterpretation of EEOC regulations. Yakima County officials aren't wrong that there should be a clear relationship between a background check and the job at hand. If any employer is going to reject an applicant based on a background check report, then that report needs to contain something that directly impairs the applicant's ability to perform the job.

What Yakima County seems to have misunderstood is that not all criminal backgrounds are the same. There are absolutely criminal convictions that would have a clear relationship with a job in drug court. For instance, what if an applicant was a convicted drug dealer, and was going to use the drug court job to locate potential new customers? And as has been proven by the voucher forging incident, someone with felony convictions for forgery and fraud might not be fit to perform a job that entails handling documents that can be misused or forged.

What Yakima County can learn from this is that the EEOC does not bar employers from running background checks their applicants. It's how those background checks are used to make hiring decisions that is important. The county is reconsidering its policies in the wake of the voucher incident.


Industry News

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.