Best Practices for Handling Social Security Mis-Match Letters

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently rescinded their proposal to impose a 90-day safe harbor for employers who receive a notice from the Social Security Administration that a social security number being used by their employee does not match the name on file with the Social Security Administration. Large unions and various business groups feared that work-authorized individuals would accidentally get caught up in the fray and be erroneously terminated. After protracted litigation, DHS backed down and rescinded the proposed rule.

Many social security mis-match letters are created as a result of women being married and changing their name to something different than what is on file at the Social Security Administration. Other reasons include typographical errors at the time of hire, individuals who naturalize and change their name, or individuals using a false name that does not match the social security number.

The rule would have given employers 90 days to resolve the matter without incurring any liability for employing an individual who may lack work authorization. The rule would have also required that if you and the employee cannot resolve the discrepancy, then it would have required that you fill out a new I-9 for the employee using documents other than a “List C” social security card. If you failed to do so, you and your company could have been held liable for civil and criminal penalties. Now that the proposed rule has been rescinded, the key question is where does that leave you, the Employer?

Read more

How to Dispose of Consumer Information

It's important to follow the regulations set out by the FTC pursuant to FCRA Section 628 when it comes to disposing of all consumer information. Paper and electronic reports must be destroyed so it cannot be read or reconstructured. Employers need to show due diligence when a shredding firm is hired. For more information go to: http://www.ftc.gov/os/2004/11/041118disposalfrn.pdf

For best practices when it comes to protecting privacy in the workplace and for best practices when it comes to handling documents that contain PII, see the recommendations from the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse available at: www.privacyrights.org/ar/SDCountyIT.htm

Identity Theft Experts Offer Advice For Job-Searching

With the unemployment rate rising and living costs going up, more people are looking for new jobs or second jobs. Job seekers often register with employment agencies, check employment ads, mail out unsolicited resumes, network with others, post resumes on job search sites, and often search craigslist.

Unfortunately identity thieves are taking advantage of these uncertain economic times to scam job seekers and gather personal identifying information. The Identity Theft Resource Center offers these suggestions to avoid being victimized:

Read more here

Consumer Report Disclosures

TALX Corporation, a subsidiary of Equifax Inc., has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it violated federal law by failing to provide certain disclosures to users of their consumer reports and to entities that provide information for consumer reports. The proposed settlement requires TALX to pay a $350,000 civil penalty and bars future violations.

TALX sells income and employment history information about consumers to lenders, pre-employment screeners, and others for use in determining their eligibility for credit, employment, or other purposes, which makes it a consumer reporting agency subject to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), according to the FTC. The company allegedly violated the FCRA by not providing the “Notice to Users of Consumer Reports: Obligations of Users Under the FCRA,” which notifies users of consumer reports of their statutory obligations, including notifying individuals if the user takes adverse action against them based on their consumer report. The company also failed to provide the “Notice to Furnishers of Information: Obligations of Furnishers Under the FCRA,” which notifies furnishers – entities that furnish information for consumer reports – of their obligations to provide accurate information, correct and update inaccurate information, and reinvestigate consumer disputes.

The proposed settlement requires TALX to provide the required notices to users and furnishers. If TALX provides the notices electronically, it must follow certain specifications to make the notices “clear and prominent.” Specifically, the notices must be unavoidable, of a size and shade and on the screen for a duration sufficient for an ordinary consumer to read and comprehend them, easily printable, and presented on the principal screen or landing page where the disclosure is relevant. These requirements are designed to ensure that the notices will be effective in communicating the information online.

The proposed settlement also contains record-keeping and reporting provisions to allow the FTC to monitor compliance with the order.

The Commission vote to authorize staff to refer the proposed complaint and stipulated final order to the U.S. Department of Justice for filing on the FTC’s behalf was 4-0. The documents were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. A complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendant has actually violated the law. Stipulated court orders are for settlement purposes only and do not necessarily constitute an admission by the defendant of a law violation. Stipulated orders have the force of law when signed by the judge.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,500 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

Review of Criminology Study on “Redemption” for Purposes of Employment

A new study just released by researchers from Carnegie Mellon University has attempted to devise a model to quantify what most people assume intuitively – that the relevance of a criminal record for employment recedes over time when a person is not re-arrested. The study looks to develop a methodology to measure how much time must pass before an applicant with a criminal record is no greater risk than an applicant without a criminal record. (Blumstein, Nakamura, “Redemption in the Presence of Widespread Criminal Background Checks", Criminology, Volume 47, Number 2 (2009))

read more here

How Job Seekers Can Get More Interviews

In our current economy, job seekers have to be creative in getting a new job. More applicants are running their own background checks.

The majority of Human Resource managers that we speak to report that if an applicant submits their own background check along with their resume, that they are "very likely" to stand out from the crowd. They are also more likely to get an interview.

While that doesn't guarantee you a job, you can't argue with the fact that it gets your foot in the door, and these days that's better than nothing.

It's easy to do ... you can run your own report online and get the results within a couple of days. Just give us a call.

You can also find out more about background checks and your rights at http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs16a-califbck.htm#1

HR 3149 Proposes to Amend the FCRA

It appears that HR 3149 was introduced yesterday and Referred to Committee. HR 3149is a bill set to amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to prohibit the use of consumer credit checks against prospective and current employees for the purposes of making adverse employment decisions.

As an industry, pre-employment credit reports are only suggested to be used when necessary and only for the responsibilities of that particular position. In fact, the EEOC and FCRA already have provisions that the adverse information can only be used if it fits within the scope of the job. Most background screening programs only impliment this type of check as part of a much broader search.

Section three of the bill provides some exceptions but does not take into account most of them. We suggest you spend some time reading this bill and write your congressperson to oppose it. We agree the intent of this bill is to get more people to work. However, as with most legislation, there are some unintended consequences.

There must be provisions for positions that could be negatively effected by a person with a poor credit history. This 111th Congress has a horrible track record already for not even reading bills before voting. Reach out and make a difference, make them read it, make them amend it!