I’ve had exactly one employer do it legally, and I expect it’s b/c I had already worked there 6+ months as a temp before they began the hiring process that necessitated the background check. Good thing they gave me a copy of it, b/c I was able to provide copies of performance evaluations to counter the lies a previous boss had told (her signature was even on them!). I had my copy a few weeks before I got an offer letter.
It’s rare for me to have a job interview that doesn’t find them asking at least one question that’s not supposed to be asked; usually it’s my marital status or age.
It’s interesting that someone asking you to comply with long-standing federal law on a matter that costs you nothing makes you decide you don’t want to hire them. If you tell them that you’re not going to hire them after they sent back a form with a note on it requesting that you comply with what the law is anyway, I would expect them to file a complaint and to be glad that they didn’t get stuck in with a business that engages in blatantly illegal practices against their employees.
You often see background checks in industries where employees handle sensitive data or are in positions of great responsibility. Employment in banks, insurance agencies, schools, security, and just about everyone associated with medical care are typically hired contingent on passing the background check. You don’t want someone with a fraud related conviction handling personal identification information and you don’t want convicted sex offenders teaching elementary school.
You are free to pay one of the many companies that perform background checks for your own personal records. You’re only entitled to the one your employer paid for if they decide take adverse action based on the report they’ve received. But there may be some states that require you to share that report with the employee regardless of of whether or not they intend to take adverse action.
With the situation presented in the OP I’d send the new employee another form explaining to him that I can’t accept a conditional agreement to run a background check. I’d explain that we’re required to provide him with a copy in the event that we were to rescind our offer based on information in the report. If he still refuses to sign the form without the conditional agreement I’ll bid him farewell and see if my 2nd favorite candidate is still interested.
I’ve had multiple ones. Here, in the UK, the report is actually sent to the person whose background is being checked, even if it’s paid for by a potential employer. I had one done only a few weeks back; I got the result posted to me, brought it into HR to be checked and photocopied, then I got to keep it.
I presume the reasoning is that, if there’s an error (like records from someone else using your name or having a similar name) a candidate can get it fixed without the potential employer ever seeing it and potentially turning someone down due to incorrect information.
It seems like a good idea to me; I suspect that if a nursery teacher applicant initially came back as someone who’d done 10 years for selling heroin hidden in lollipops to kids, many people would not be able to get that fully out of their head even if it did turn out that it was actually their evil twin with the same name what done it.
To be fair(?), anyone could do that. And since it wasn’t for that reason, I’m not sure it’s worth going down that rabbit hole.
It should be noted that if the OP doesn’t hire this person, not only will it have nothing to do with any information found in a background check, as of now, the OP hasn’t even done a background check.
Agreed, I just feel the applicant could have found a better way to request the copy of the background check, if it was legal for them to have it. According to what I see posted here, they’re legally entitled to it if they’re not hired due to something found in the report. However, they altered pre-employement paperwork in an attempt to force the OP to turn over the background check regardless of if they were or were not hired and regardless of the type of information found in it.
I’m willing to bet, if the answer was yes or no, had the applicant simply asked for a copy of it, this thread wouldn’t be here.
I think we may be getting off track with talk of them being the lawsuit type. That was a hypothetical added later on by other posters. And, as stated up thread, if they’re the lawsuit type, they can sue for whatever reason they want. If the OP doesn’t hire them because of this and they sue for gender discrimination, that’s a whole different thing.
And, to be honest, if I saw that coming I’d cut my loses as soon as possible. I’d rather deal with a baseless accusation from someone I didn’t hire than wonder what they’re going to sue me for while they worked for me. Or put another way, I’d rather get sued by someone I didn’t hire than get sued by someone I fired.
To be clear, if I wasn’t already, my big issue with this isn’t that they asked for the background check, it’s how.
If this person, while attempting to get hired, took something you asked them to sign and altered it, what are they going to do after they have the job?
If it makes it easier, pretend it has nothing to do with the background check. What if you were hiring someone and somewhere in the flurry of papers that is involved all of that, you found a handwritten, initialed, line stating “by hiring this applicant to work for [company], you agree to increase their pay by 5% a minimum of once per calendar year”.
Asking for a 5% raise once a year isn’t out of line. But quietly adding it to something you sign and give back to them is out of line, imo.
This is a big red flag as far as I’m concerned. Asking about seeing it is one thing, but adding demands to a standard form and initializing it seems rather weird to me.
But it’s the employer’s report. If you want to know your background, pay for your own report. As authoritatively shown, you only get to see it if the employer doesn’t hire you.
As mentioned, you have to give a copy only if you don’t hire them, but it sounds like they want it regardless. The law doesn’t require you to provide it if no adverse action is taken.
That’s because if it’s a new employee, you hired them, and so have no obligation to provide the report. Have you made a no-hire decision based on the report since 1970? If so, then you were required to provide the report.
My current employer used a third party service on my when I got hired, and the service just provided me a copy of the report by default.
I don’t see what the big deal is.
I’ve been given a copy of every background check ever done by an employer, and I’ve never not been hired because of anything that turned up. Based on that, and what everyone else has said, there is some obligation at some point to show the prospect the check if done, depending.
For me, I wouldn’t even bother with doing the check. I’d just move on to the next candidate as soon as I saw the altered document.
I don’t know the law. But inquiries on your credit report are considered negative information, and are a cost to me. It’s only fair that they provide me a copy, both to balance the cost to me, and to provide me a cost-free way to verify who did it.
So I reckon they owe me a copy of the report.
Generally when I apply for jobs there is a blank that says “We are performing a credit report. Would you like a copy? yes/no”.
I always tick ‘yes I would like a copy’. They never send me a copy. I get the job anyway, so I don’t make waves.
I haven’t been through one in a long time, but I did have one when I first passed my Series 7. My dad and I have similar names and often our information often gets mixed together.The company thought it was interesting that I had a Bachelor’s degree before I was born and a PhD at 1 years old!
Does this apply to every report or (based on name “Fair Credit Act”) just financial shortcomings issues on a report that resulted in no hire?
I agree that the candidate unilaterally changing the form is a red flag. At the very least, they should have talked to the hiring manager or HR first, and discussed the issue. Changing the form was an aggressive and confrontational way of making their wishes known, and doesn’t bode well for their ability to interact productively with others in a business environment.
Soft credit inquiries, which is what happens during a job application, don’t affect your credit score
My first reaction is that this person is always going to be high-maintenance, have his undies in a bundle about something at work.
Back in the day, I was in charge of vetting and doing first interviews, and my boss and the owner of the company would sit in on second interviews. Then we’d have a big Decision-Making Session. One topic that always came up is “How much maintenance, how much work is it going to be, just to have this person around?”
(It got to be a game, where we’d learn the owner’s code-words. If he used the phrase “I’m just afraid s/he might be a bit of a prima donna”, then nothing we could say would get that person hired. If he said “Well, s/he seems like a team player…” then there was no way that person wasn’t starting Monday. I have since passed on those tips to my students)
This comment was already addresed WRT soft credit inquires. However, legally that wouldn’t hold up. The law states that if you’re not hired due to derogatory information in your background check they have to give you a copy. However, if they didn’t hire you, surely it wasn’t due to the inquiry that they made.
Regarding this, and others that made similar ‘they always gave me a copy’ statements, that doesn’t apply here. It’s nice that they gave you a copy, the point is that they weren’t required to.
Yes, except for the EEOC requiring it it wasn’t required.
Every report. While the law is called the Fair Credit Reporting Act, it’s actually about consumer reports, which have a somewhat wider definition:
[emphasis added]
The background check, in looking for criminal history, etc., looks for information covered under this definition, particularly the highlighted parts.
I don’t see it that way, because at this point it seems the employer has likely ALREADY violated federal law by failing to provide the statutorily-required notices. The employer is flashing big red signals about general cluelessness and/or a willingness to disregard the law (“I just don’t see why I should give them a copy of it for free”); why are you expecting the applicant to behave better than the potential employer? If the company has basically announced to the applicant that they’re going to be difficult, then the applicant announcing right back that they don’t intend to be a pushover is understandable.
Sure they do. OP doesn’t have to accept it. But I never sign something unless I agree to the terms, and that may take some modification.
I guess I’m a prima donna then because even in high school when I filled out paper applications for mcjobs, I blacked out the section for SSN and wrote “Will provide if hired”.
This is just more corporate bullshit where the business thinks they have every right to a person’s private information because a job interview is an inherently unequal power situation.