Following is a work-linked scenario that might reasonably command the attention of many of our readers.
Your prospective employer just told you that it is company policy to conduct a background check on all job applicants. A hiring manager informed you that a look into your past will centrally focus on your prior job placements, education and criminal history.
Fair enough, you thought. But then you ran into another would-be employee who passed along the hiring manager’s declaration to him that he could forgo the check based on the company’s confidence in his resume and other submitted materials.
Do you feel a bit uncomfortable after hearing that?
In the real workplace world, you certainly would. In fact, we submit at the national legal offices of The Devadoss Law Firm that your blood pressure might materially jump after hearing something like that.
Because such differential treatment concerning background checks is flatly unlawful under federal laws – and generally under tandem state prohibitions operative across the country as well.
We underscore that on our website. We stress therein that, “If an employer conducts a check on one potential employee, then it must do the same for every potential employee.”
If the above scenario actually played out for a job seeker, he or she would have compelling grounds to directly raise the matter with hiring company personnel and demand a fair playing field. Alternatively, timely and candid discussion with a proven and empathetic legal team could yield strong advocacy focused on accountability, deterrence and a just outcome.