CUSTOMER RESOURCES

Two Unrelated Cases Highlight Holes in Portland School District’s Background Checks

Portland Public Schools is under the microscope at the moment, after two unrelated cases came to light indicating potential holes in the district's employee background check policies. According to a recent report from Willamette Week, the two cases involved a pending hire for the district’s general counsel position and a district administrator, respectively. The first incident occurred in November when the district was in the process of hiring an attorney to serve as general legal counsel for the district. Portland Public Schools extended a tentative job offer to Wes Bridges, a lawyer who hails from Florida. Bridges had previously served as the attorney for the school board of Florida's Polk County School District. In 2009, though, he pleaded no contest to charges of violating public records law during his work for the Polk County School Board. According to the Willamette Week report, it wasn’t Portland Public Schools’ background check policy that uncovered Bridges’ conviction, but investigations by the media. Bridges subsequently withdrew his name from consideration, but Willamette Week says that the incident caused local journalists and community members to question the background check policies and procedures in place at PPS. As the largest school district in the state of Oregon, PPS serves some 48,500 students across 85 schools. The second question brought Portland Public Schools and its background check policies even more under the microscope. This case involves Richard Gilliam, a district administrator who was disciplined and stripped of most of his duties a few months ago after what the Willamette Week report described as “complaints from subordinates.” Despite these complaints, though, Gilliam is still employed with PPS. Gilliam has been working for Portland Public Schools since the summer of 2013. At the time, he passed his background check with no apparent red flags. As it turns out, though, Gilliam pleaded no contest to patronizing a prostitute in 1998 while living in Chicago. Under Oregon state regulations, individuals with such convictions (or pleas of no contest) are supposed to be automatically disqualified from holding a teaching license. It's not immediately clear whether or not the same stipulations apply to individuals seeking administrator licenses and there is no clarity regarding whether or not Portland Public Schools knew about Gilliam's criminal history. The district only keeps records of employee background checks for three years. Since Gilliam was hired in 2013, records of his pre-employment background check were destroyed. The district also destroyed the form where, if Gilliam had self-disclosed his no contest plea, he would have provided the relevant information. A spokesperson for the district said that PPS is “trying to understand why” Gilliam’s no contest plea went overlooked at the time of his hiring. Sources: www.wweek.com/news/schools/2016/12/21/portland-public-schools-cant-explain-how-it-hired-a-director-with-a-prostitution-conviction/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_Public_Schools_(Oregon)

Tacoma, Washington Firefighter Was Hired Despite Drug Addiction

The background check policies of the local fire department in Tacoma, Washington are under a microscope following the death of a firefighter from a heroin overdose. Per a report from The News Tribune, one of the largest newspapers in Washington State, the firefighter in question had a long history of drug addiction and several interactions with the law. The department was not aware of his drug problem. The firefighter, Ramsey Mueller, joined the Tacoma Fire Department in late 2015 following a reportedly rigorous testing and screening process. Per the News Tribune article, Mueller needed to complete a background check, a drug test, and a physical before the fire department would hire him officially. He passed his drug screening and his physical. He filled out a medical questionnaire, which included a query about past use of illegal drugs and a question about whether Mueller had a condition that might put himself or other persons at risk. The record of Mueller’s medical questionnaire is confidential, so the News Tribune couldn’t report on whether he had given truthful answers to those questions. Most fire department officials don’t see the actual questionnaires, reports indicate. Instead, department commanders receive a pass/fail notice on each candidate’s medical questionnaire. Whoever reviewed Mueller’s medical questionnaire gave him a pass, which suggests to reporters that the candidate wasn’t entirely truthful about his drug history at that time. Even if Mueller didn’t admit his drug history on his questionnaire, the information was hinted at by his criminal background check, coverage explains. Mueller’s drug history included encounters with the law as well as a hospitalization, but it didn’t include a conviction. Normally, reports indicate, that would mean that his background check would come back clean. However, there was a pending misdemeanor charge against him in California as well as a still-active warrant for his arrest. The Tacoma Fire Department’s Deputy Chief saw the arrest warrant and the pending misdemeanor charge from California. The background check report didn’t provide detail about the nature of the charge, reports indicate. The Deputy Chief didn’t ask, but told Mueller that the warrant needed to be cleared up for his hiring process to proceed. Mueller could clear up the warrant, as he had already been arrested on the charge in question. The issue never came up again, and Mueller was hired to join the Tacoma Fire Department. Mueller’s mother, Faith Mueller, is a long-time employee of the Tacoma Fire Department. Under department policy, employees are required to notify their superiors if they have information that might help safeguard “the best interests and welfare of the department.” Faith Mueller knew about her son’s lengthy battle with heroin and meth addiction but never disclosed that fact to a supervisor, coverage explains. In July, Mueller showed up to work acting strangely. He was hospitalized and drug tested, but the drug test was labeled as private, so the fire department was not told which substances he might have been using. Two days later, Mueller resigned from the department. His mother and her partner found him in his bedroom the next day dead of an accidental heroin overdose. As the News Tribune explains, a background check report without enough detail, a system that keeps commanders from seeing medical questionnaires, dishonesty on the part of Mueller, and a ban-the-box policy that bars public employers from asking certain questions during the interview process may all be reasons for Mueller’s hiring despite his battles with a potentially harmful and risky addiction issue. Sources: http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article125178739.html

Indiana Senator Wants to Ban “Ban the Box” Legislation

Could Indiana make it illegal for municipalities to implement “ban the box” ordinances? If a Republican State Senator gets his way, then yes. Per a report from The Times of Northwest Indiana, Phil Boots, an Indiana State Senator from the town of Crawfordsville, has announced a plan to introduce a new piece of legislation during the current session. The law in question, he says, would bar cities, towns, and counties throughout Indiana from enacting "ban the box" policies. Boots and his planned legislation align with comments made recently by the Indiana Chamber of Commerce. Per the Times article, the Chamber of Commerce believes that “ban the box” ordinances are unfair to businesses. Employers should be allowed to make their own decisions about who to hire, the Chamber says. “Ban the box” ordinances impair this freedom by forcing businesses to remove questions about criminal history from their job applications. Some “ban the box” policies even restrict when in the hiring process employers can run background checks on their applicants. Proponents of “ban the box” ordinances argue that the policies help ex-criminal offenders find jobs and rebuild their lives—thereby reducing recidivism. Mike Ripley, who serves as the Vice President of the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, doesn’t disagree with that argument. However, he does believe that employers should be the ones ultimately making the decision of whether to hire individuals with criminal records. Technically, employers still make that decision, as “ban the box” policies don’t forbid pre-employment background checks. However, “ban the box” policies do delay when in the hiring process employers can learn about applicant criminal histories. Indiana hasn’t seen much in the way of "ban the box" legislation over the years. While some states have more than half a dozen municipalities that have passed "ban the box" ordinances (in California, for instance, 12 districts have some form of "ban the box" legislation), Indiana only has one. Marion County, the county that houses Indianapolis, banned the box for public employees and contractors in 2014. The county has yet to prohibit the box for private employers, however. The legislation that Boots is currently drafting would not retroactively eliminate the "ban the box" ordinance in Marion County. For the time being at least, public employers in Indianapolis would still not be permitted to ask about criminal history on job applications. However, if the legislation passes, no other city or county in the state would be authorized to implement its own "ban the box" ordinance. Boots said he wants to push this legislation to make things simpler and more uniform for employers. He is worried that, if different policies began emerging in every different city or county, businesses would have a difficult time knowing what rules to follow. If Indiana bans “ban the box,” then all employers outside of Marion County would know that they were free to ask about criminal history on job applications. Sources: http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/new-state-bill-to-prohibit-ban-the-box-ordinances/article_bdfccb5b-1599-5eb2-962b-6aaf61a84c27.html http://www.nelp.org/content/uploads/Ban-the-Box-Fair-Chance-State-and-Local-Guide.pdf

Michigan Animal Shelters Can Now Run Background Checks on Pet Adopters

Background checks will soon become a part of the pet adoption process in the State of Michigan. According to a report from the Associated Press, Michigan’s Lieutenant Governor recently signed a piece of legislation that permits animal shelters throughout the state to run background checks on prospective pet adopters. Previously, Michigan animal shelters had no legal authority to require background checks for individuals seeking to adopt pets. The goal behind the new law is to prevent known animal abusers from adopting new pets. Shelters that decide to use their new privileges and run background checks will be looking primarily for offenses involving the mistreatment or neglect of animals. One important factor to recognize about Michigan's new law is that it does not require animal shelters to run background checks. Rather, the bill that Lieutenant Governor Brian Calley recently approved gives shelters the option to require background checks. Some shelters will likely choose to avoid the extra step, which could be a barrier to some pet adoptions due to cost and time. Legislators had considered a version of the bill that would have mandated criminal history checks for all pet adopters. Before the bill reached the desk of the Lieutenant Governor, though, lawmakers amended it to make the checks an optional step. Still, requirement or not, some shelters are looking forward to having additional resources at their disposal to help combat animal abuse. WLUC, a news station based in the Upper Peninsula, spoke to the director of Escanaba's Delta County Animal Shelter about the new law. The director, Susan Gartland, said she was glad to have “one more tool to be able to screen people.” However, Gartland also noted that criminal background checks would likely remain a secondary tool for preventing abuse. Since many instances of animal abuse don't end in criminal conviction, organizations like the Delta County Animal Shelter rely on communication with community members and other shelters to flag potential abusers. In the WLUC report, Gartland went on record, urging people to call law enforcement or their local animal shelters when they notice potential instances of animal mistreatment. Normally, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder would be responsible for approving or vetoing laws. Calley took on the responsibility of signing this particular piece of legislation because Snyder is currently on vacation out of state. However, this fact should not impact the validity or power of the law in any way. Sources: http://woodtv.com/2016/12/29/new-law-allows-background-checks-at-mi-animal-shelters/ http://www.uppermichiganssource.com/content/news/New-law-allows-background-checks-for-animal-shelters-409388695.html

Maryland Won’t Require Fingerprint Checks for Uber and Lyft

Regulators in the state of Maryland recently decided against a mandate that would have required fingerprint background checks for popular ridesharing companies Uber and Lyft. According to a report about the decision from The Baltimore Sun, Uber and Lyft will instead have to comply with “additional reporting and safety provisions.” Uber was threatening to leave the state of Maryland entirely if the government decided to require fingerprint background checks. In 2015, the Maryland General Assembly agreed that it wanted fingerprint checks for all ridesharing drivers, to match compliance rules for taxi drivers. The requirement would have made it illegal for drivers to accept fares through the Uber and Lyft apps without first submitting to (and paying for) the fingerprint checks.[G1] [G2] Technically, that General Assembly decision is still in place, and ridesharing drivers in Maryland do need fingerprint checks on file. However, both Uber and Lyft petitioned the Maryland Public Service Commission for waivers that would allow them to be exempted from the rule. According to a recent [G3] [G4] Washington Post article, the Public Service Commission went through multiple days of hearings in the month of November, trying to decide whether or not to sign off on the waivers.[G5] Ultimately, the commission decided that both Uber and Lyft have sufficient, extensive background check policies in place to keep passengers safe. Regulators noted that, since both fingerprinting and commercial background checks can have holes or return inaccurate information, there wouldn[G6] ’t be much benefit to adding another layer of checks. Any other ridesharing companies will still need to follow the state law for fingerprint checks, but since Uber and Lyft are by far the biggest businesses in the marketplace, the impact will likely not be significant.[G7] There would have been a significant impact if Maryland regulators had decided to enforce the fingerprint background check requirement for Uber and Lyft. Maryland was the first state to consider imposing fingerprint background check requirements on ridesharing services. Previously, these restrictions had only occurred in cities. As a result, [G8] the Maryland scenario marked the first time that Uber was threatening to cease operations across an entire state. Plus, since some Maryland ridesharing drivers also often accept fares in Virginia and the District of Columbia, the effects of new regulations would likely have extended to outside the state. [G9] [G10] [G11] [G12] Following the decision from the Maryland Public Service Commission, both Uber and Lyft noted that they had no further plans to cease operations in the state. Neither company will be completely exempted from the state law, though. While the Public Service Commission agreed to waive the fingerprint background check requirement for Uber and Lyft, both companies will still have to comply with other facets of the law. For instance, the ridesharing companies will have to rescreen each of their drivers on an annual basis. They will also have to let state regulators know if they choose to alter their background check policies in any way.[G13] [G14] Sources: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/uber-is-threatening-to-leave-maryland-if-state-toughens-driver-screening-rules/2016/12/03/1080b1b2-b02c-11e6-be1c-8cec35b1ad25_story.html?utm_term=.9ca0364f83c8 http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bs-md-uber-fingerprint-decision-20161222-story.html

Department of Transportation Creates Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse

Employers who hire commercial drivers will have an easier way to check for drug and alcohol infractions in the future. Per a report from Mondaq, the United States Department of Transportation recently announced plans to create a Commercial Driver’s License Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse. The Clearinghouse will provide a database for employers to report or check drug and alcohol infractions for commercial drivers. Under new rules established with the Clearinghouse, employers will be compelled to report any violations of the Department of Transportation’s drug and alcohol testing program to the Clearinghouse. The Department of Transportation requires drug and alcohol testing for companies that employ commercial drivers. Certain vehicles—such as large trucks—require a commercial driver’s license to drive. Employers with these types of vehicles in their fleet are subject to the DOT’s testing program. These employers will also be subject to the new Clearinghouse initiative. Per coverage, employers will have to report commercial drivers to the Clearinghouse if they test positive for any drug use. In addition, reports are required for any alcohol tests that return a BAC of 0.04 or higher. An employer must report a driver to the Clearinghouse if they are aware that a driver is using alcohol or drugs on the job or if the driver declines to take a drug or alcohol test. All requirements only apply to DOT-mandated drug and alcohol tests. If an employer chooses to run additional tests of their own volition, coverage explains, they are not legally required to report the findings to the Clearinghouse. If the employer is aware that a driver is using drugs or alcohol, but the usage is not impacting job performance, there is no obligation to report. In addition to requiring employers to report information about commercial drivers to the Clearinghouse, the new Department of Transportation rules will require employers to run Clearinghouse searches. If an employer is hiring a driver to operate a vehicle that requires a CDL, he or she must run a query through the Clearinghouse database. As coverage explains, the database will help these employers to find out which drivers have histories of potentially dangerous alcohol or drug use. The Clearinghouse will inform employers about whether a driver has gone through the DOT’s required rehabilitation process. As the DOT explained, the goal of the Clearinghouse is to make reporting and background checks for drug and alcohol use more effective in the commercial driving industry. The requirements surrounding the Clearinghouse will not affect employers or drivers immediately. The Clearinghouse still needs to be built and employers will not have to start complying with the new rules until January 2020. Sources: http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/551656/Health+Safety/DOT+Creates+CDL+Drug+And+Alcohol+Clearinghouse+Imposing+Employer+Reporting+And+Query+Obligations

City of Los Angeles Bans the Box and More

U.S. Senators Wants Terror Watch List Checks for Mass Transit Employees

Per recent reports, a pair of United States Senators wants to revise nationwide policies regarding mass transit employee background checks. After 9/11, all aspects of air travel were tightened and made more secure, including employee background checks. Similar regulations never trickled down to other transportation industries, including rail and bus transit. New York’s Charles Schumer and New Jersey’s Cory Booker are leading the charge to change that fact. Per an article from NJ.com, Schumer recently went on record with the belief that all passenger bus drivers and commuter train workers should be required to go through more in-depth background screenings. These screening, he said, should include checks against terrorist watch lists. Per a report from CBS New York, Schumer is not the first person to recommend such a policy shift for rail and bus operators. In 2007, the 9/11 Commission recommended that rail and bus transit employees have their names and aliases checked against terrorist watch lists. Despite the recommendation, there was never any legislative requirement to force train companies or mass transit companies to add a terrorist watch list step to their employee background check processes, coverage notes. As background check professionals have explained, terrorist watch list data isn’t the type of information that would be pulled in a standard county or state criminal background check. An alias search or a background check run through a nationwide or multijurisdictional database would be more likely to include information gleaned from terrorist watch lists. CBS New York contacted major rail transit companies, including Amtrak and MTA. Neither transit firms would say outright whether their employee background checks incorporated data from terror lists. Because of recent incidents in Europe, Schumer and Booker are both particularly concerned about the state of railway security in the United States. In March, an attack on a three-carriage train at a Brussels metro station killed 20 people. The Department of Homeland Security and TSA appear to have been looking at requiring terrorist watch list checks for mass transit employees. The CBS New York report says that there is currently “an action pending to require the screenings.” There is no indication for when this “action” could become a nationwide rule. As reports note, Schumer and Booker are pushing for the two government departments to move a bit faster so that they can finalize the rule sooner rather than later. Sources: http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/12/booker_schumer_want_transit_workers_checked_agains.html http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/12/12/transit-workers-terror-watch-list/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Brussels_bombings

Broker's Arrest Raises Questions about Real Estate Industry Background Checks

Background check standards are a major topic in the real estate industry this week after a realtor in South Carolina was arrested for kidnapping and murder. Per a report from Inman, a real estate news website, the accused, Todd Kohlhepp, has been linked to seven murders. Kohlhepp is a licensed realtor in the state of South Carolina. He is also the owner and broker-in-charge of a company called TKA Real Estate, which has two offices, one in Greenville and the other in Spartanburg.

United States Navy supplier Electric Boat Struggles with Background Check Backlog

General Dynamics Electric Boat is the company entrusted with building submarines for the United States Navy, a role it has played for more than a century. This week, Electric Boat has been in the news for something new: background checks.

Nursing Agency Calling for Stronger Background Checks in Colorado

The Colorado Nursing Agency says that it is "currently exploring options" that would improve nursing background checks in the state. Currently, per a report from 9News NBC in Denver, Colorado has no statewide policy that requires prospective nurses to go through background checks. Colorado is one of 14 states in the country that don't have such a requirement at the state licensure level.

North Carolina Nonprofit Fights for Ban the Box Policies

A nonprofit organization in North Carolina is pushing for the adoption of ban the box policies throughout the state. Per a report from the Fox 8 news station based in High Point, North Carolina, the organization in question—the North Carolina Harm Reduction Coalition (or the NCHRC)—wants to introduce a bill to the legislation in January geared toward helping ex-criminal offenders gain a competitive foothold in the job market.

Texas Gym Faces Lawsuit for Negligence After Sexual Assault

A family in Texas is pursuing a lawsuit against a Georgetown-based gymnastics gym, alleging that the business was negligent in a sexual assault case from years prior. Per a report from KHOU.com, a Houston news station, the assault occurred in 2010 against a three-year-old female victim. The victim is not named in the suit—she is referred to only as "Jane Doe"—but the perpetrator of the assault is named. The perpetrator, Ryan Bradley Pitts, is already behind bars, serving a 60-year prison sentence for a child pornography conviction.

Kentucky Considering Background Checks for Camp Workers

Kentucky's House Task Force on Child Abuse and Exploitation Prevention is currently mulling several different proposals, including one that could demand background checks for camp personnel. Per a report from WLKY, a Kentucky news station based in Louisville, the task force assembled on the morning of Tuesday, October 25th to hear proposals from state officials.

National Background Check Investigation Bureau

On October 1st, the National Background Investigations Bureau (NBIB) officially took over for the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) as the entity responsible for running background checks on federal employees and contractors. The shift is a major change for federal-level background checks as the OPM had been responsible for those screenings for many years. However, per a report from FedTech, the NBIB won't be completely up and running for another 12 to 18 months.