Background Checks
safety
768 Posts
[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 02-10-05 AT 05:09PM (CST)[/font][br][br]If one has a diversion on their record, example would be a DUI diversion, will it show up on a background check?
Comments
Because of the nature of our business, we are required by statute to perform background checks and directly link with Fl Dept of Law Enforcement (FDLE) for the verifications, and we see everything, all arrests, all convictions, all traffic citations, even if there was no conviction. We are also legally required (because of the nature of our business) to investigate juvenile records. We base our decisions on convictions only and use a labor screening statute in Florida as the basis. It describes that all pleas of guilt, pleas of no contest, pre-trial diversionary programs, and probations (regardless of adjudication) are to be treated equally as convictions. Only nolle processed resolutions can be accepted as a non conviction. We can also accept many misdemeanors, but virtually no felonies and no misdemeanors if minors were involved in the crime. We even get notice of 'wanted persons' designations and notices of outstanding arrest warrants, which sometimes means nothing more than the individual is known to be driving with a suspended DL or failed to pay a traffic fine.
I am often asked by folks I disqualify based on criminal history how we found what we found because other employers had no knowledge the history we found existed. My usual response is that we made the request (authorized and advertised up front), the information came back to us in the response, and I can't speak to how other employers conduct their background verifications.
If after the period of time they kept their nose clean then the case is actually put on the docket for trial and subsequently dismissed.
Tehcnically, the case should not show-up on a background check as a conviction, however, depending on the level of investigation doen by your provider it will certainly show as a pending case. The arrest record for the DUI remains as is. That one will show.
Gene
I got my son's public drunk off his record. He was 19 and Mississippi State had just beaten Auburn that night in football. Good thing was that he was not driving a vehicle. Bad thing was that he threatened to piss on a cop's leg. I paid a lawyer $300 to have it removed. I think that's pretty common for people not 21. I later paid a service to run his background and sure enough, it was not there.
I have had dialog with local state attorneys who advise young folks to plea no contest and take withheld adjudication, explaining that it will leave no mark on their criminal history. The truth is that it won't unless the employer is required by law (because of the nature of the business) to perform criminal background checks. For those of us who must, it is a guilty conviction because our statute says it must be. The catch is that we are in a rural area and the 3rd largest employer in the area. There aren't many other places for young folks to apply for work and stay local if they don't come to us. Also, a lot of family connections, which leads to hurt feelings. It's been a real tragedy for me to witness from the HR side.
>that the programs like that I know about in
>Florida are heavily populated by young people
>who with court appointed legal representation as
>they can least afford private legal counsel.
Replace young with black, hispanic or whatever else you like and you have the making of adverse impact. I am personally not fond of policies that take a blanket approach at disqualifying based solely on offense without taking a more structured approach.
I can certainly understand positions which involve a high level of human safety, deal with negotiable instruments and even national security requiring individuals with impeccable credentials. However, for the majority of rank and file employers, it is ridiculous to willy-nilly disqualify someone because they had a drunk and disorderly diverted ten years ago at age 21.
Gene
The apple doesn't fall far, does it? x0:)
No angel here. My intent was a lighthearted response to your story. I guess I should have realized that with our history of verbal sparring, I should have just not responded at all.