Pre Employment Screening Articles

A former caregiver with a history of arrests has been sentenced to a year behind bars for stealing from an elderly couple, but not before the judge lashed out at the agency that endorsed her without conducting a criminal background check.

Enfield Superior Court Judge Howard Scheinblum sentenced the former caregiver, Elizabeth Arter, 45, of Hartford to a year behind bars last Thursday for cheating the elderly Granby couple out of $800 while she provided medical care for them in 2006.

Arter was convicted of fourth-degree larceny in the case. But what perturbed Scheinblum more than Arter’s crime was that Jewish Family Services of Hartford, a referral agency with a bank of caregivers, had endorsed Arter even though she harbored a lengthy criminal history. At that time the agency had not conducted a criminal background check on Arter.

“Health care providers need to do a better job on background checks,” Scheinblum said in Superior Court. Arter’s criminal history includes multiple charges of larceny, possession of marijuana, prostitution, and breach of peace, according to the affidavit supporting her arrest.

Officials at Jewish Family Services said they take the matter “very seriously,” and have since implemented criminal background checks for the caregivers they refer.

Previously, they had relied on strong references and traditional background checks, Anne Danaher, executive director of Jewish Family Services, said Monday.

The company began conducting criminal background checks of its caregivers in September 2006, about two months after the incident involving Arter.

“At the time when (Arter) was working through us, we didn’t do criminal background checks,” Danaher said. “Now we look extensively into their criminal backgrounds.”

Last year Arter forged a $600 check and charged the couple an extra $200 for her services, the affidavit says. At the time, she was acting as an overnight caregiver in the couple’s Granby home.
She was hired to provide care for the elderly husband, the affidavit says.

Arter charged the couple $600 for her services, which were only supposed to cost $400, the affidavit says. After contacting Jewish Family Services, the couple was refunded $200, the affidavit states.

A month later, when the elderly woman was looking over her bank account balance she noticed a $600 discrepancy, the affidavit says. Her bank found later that it was a forged check, endorsed to Arter, the affidavit states. Arter was originally charged with fourth-degree larceny and second-degree forgery in the case.

During the sentencing hearing, Arter’s lawyer, Carmine Giuliano, told Scheinblum that Arter had a drug problem and should be commended for seeking treatment and “trying to straighten herself out.”

“She never had any self-esteem,” he said of Arter. “She deserves another chance, despite her record.”

But Scheinblum stood behind his decision.

“I give you credit for trying to turn yourself around,” he told Arter in court. “But I can’t ignore your offense.”

By: Jenna N. Carlesso, Journal Inquirer

 Powered by Info Cubic - a pre employment screening company

By Scott Cannon

Business Journals around the country are running an article titled “Avoiding litigation that will keep you awake at night.” You can read the whole article here in the South Florida Business Journal if you have a business journal subscription. In case you don’t here are some key points:

If there’s a bully working for you, you can’t sit by and let him or her run roughshod over others. You need to confront the employee, point out the bad behavior and the consequences if it continues. Then deliver the consequences if behavior doesn’t change.
The article covers several issues like abuses of leave, where the lesson is essentially the same. When you’re confronted with bad behavior, you have to deal with it. It’s your job as the boss.

What about preventing bad behavior? The article offers two clear pieces of advice. Here’s one: “Conducting a thorough background check on new hires can save a lot of hassle in the long run.” If you’ve got an applicant who is likely to create problems for you, an effective hiring process, including a background check, can help you avoid a hiring mistake.
The other bit of advice is to make your expectations clear. The people who work for you need to know what your policies are. They need to know what you expect and what you forbid.
Tell new people when they’re hired. Review key policies with everyone regularly.
Take away these three rules to help you avoid lawsuits.
Hire carefully and well, using reference and background checks.
Tell people who work for you what to expect and what the consequences are for bad behavior.
Confront problems early. Define what will happen if bad behavior continues.

By MaltaMedia News
Sep 1, 2006, 16:24

Three youths from Birkirkara were arraigned in court on Friday after being involved in violent incidents with two other men they work with on Tuesday. One of the youths, 20-year-old Aaron Vella was accused of attempting to seriously wound one of the victims, Reuben Scicluna and relapsing. The attempted wounding was foiled because of an occurrence independent of Aaron Vella’s will.

Another youth among the accused, 18-year-old Josef Vella, was charged with permanently disfiguring Mario Saliba from Gzira. The young man, who also kicked and punched the victim repeatedly, was also accused of threatening Mario Saliba numerous times.

Together with 18-year-old Josef Vella, Josef Vella and Mario Saliba were also accused of holding Mario Saliba against his will, throwing stones at Reuben Scicluna and breaching public peace.

The court, presided over by Magistrate Dennis Montebello, remanded the three youths in custody until the victims take the witness stand.

The prosecution was led by Inspector Anthony Cassar.

© Copyright 2006 - MaltaMedia Online Network

Powered by Info Cubic - a pre employment screening company

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that police cannot be sued for how they enforce restraining orders, ending a lawsuit by a Colorado woman who claimed police did not do enough to prevent her estranged husband from killing her three young daughters.

Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police enforcement of the court order against her husband, the court said in a 7-2 opinion.

City governments had feared that if the court ruled the other way, it would unleash a potentially devastating flood of cases that could bankrupt municipal governments.

Gonzales contended that police did not do enough to stop her estranged husband, who took the three daughters from the front yard of her home in June 1999 in violation of a restraining order.

Hours later Simon Gonzales died in a gun fight with officers outside a police station. The bodies of the three girls, ages 10, 9 and 7, were in his truck.

Gonzales argued that she was entitled to sue based on her rights under the 14th Amendment and under Colorado law that says officers shall use every reasonable means to enforce a restraining order. She contended that her restraining order should be considered property under the 14th Amendment and that it was taken from her without due process when police failed to enforce it.

”The restraining orders are not worth anything unless police officers are willing to enforce them. They are just paper,” said Brian Reichel, the attorney for Gonzales. ”If nothing else this case has shined the spotlight on a very important issue.”

Castle Rock, Co., police contend they tried to help Gonzales. Police twice went to the estranged husband’s apartment, kept an eye out for his truck and called his cellular phone and home phone.

Gonzales reached him on his cell phone, and he told her that he had taken the girls to an amusement park in nearby Denver. Gonzales contends that police should have gone to the amusement park or contacted Denver police.

The case is Castle Rock, Colo., v. Gonzales, 04-278

Beginning today, a new federal rule will require businesses and individuals to take appropriate measures to dispose of sensitive information derived from consumer reports. Any business or individual who uses a consumer report for a business purpose is subject to the requirements of the Disposal Rule, a part of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACTA), which calls for the proper disposal of information in consumer reports and records to protect against “unauthorized access to or use of the information.”
The standard for the proper disposal of information derived from a consumer report is flexible, and allows the organizations and individuals covered by the Rule to determine what measures are reasonable based on the sensitivity of the information, the costs and benefits of different disposal methods, and changes in technology. Although the Disposal Rule applies to consumer reports and the information derived from consumer reports, the FTC encourages those who dispose of any records containing a consumer’s personal or financial information to take similar protective measures.
The Rule applies to people and both large and small organizations that use consumer reports, including: consumer reporting companies; lenders; insurers; employers; landlords; government agencies; mortgage brokers, car dealers; attorneys; private investigators; debt collectors; individuals who pull consumer reports on prospective home employees, such as nannies or contractors; and entities that maintain information in consumer reports as part of their role as a service provider to other organizations covered by the Rule.
The Disposal Rule applies to consumer reports or information derived from consumer reports. The Fair Credit Reporting Act defines the term consumer report to include information obtained from a consumer reporting company that is used – or expected to be used – in establishing a consumer’s eligibility for credit, employment, or insurance, among other purposes. Examples of consumer reports include credit reports, credit scores, reports businesses or individuals receive with information relating to employment background, check writing history, insurance claims, residential or tenant history, or medical history.
The Rule requires disposal practices that are reasonable and appropriate to prevent the unauthorized access to – or use of – information in a consumer report. For example, reasonable measures for disposing of consumer report information could include establishing and complying with policies to: burn, pulverize, or shred papers containing consumer report information so that the information cannot be read or reconstructed; destroy or erase electronic files or media containing consumer report information so that the information cannot be read or reconstructed; or conduct due diligence and hire a document destruction contractor to dispose of material specifically identified as consumer report information consistent with the Rule. Due diligence could include: reviewing an independent audit of a disposal company’s operations and/or its compliance with the Rule; obtaining information about the disposal company from several references; requiring that the disposal company be certified by a recognized trade association; or reviewing and evaluating the disposal company’s information security policies or procedures.
Financial institutions that are subject to both the Disposal Rule and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley (GLB) Safeguards Rule, which requires institutions to take steps to protect sensitive customer information, should incorporate practices dealing with the proper disposal of consumer information into the information security program that the Safeguards Rule requires. Information is available at www.ftc.gov/privacy/privacyinitiatives/safeguards.html.
FACTA directed the FTC, the Federal Reserve Board, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Securities and Exchange Commission to adopt comparable and consistent rules regarding the disposal of sensitive consumer report information. The FTC’s Disposal Rule became effective June 1, 2005. It was published in the Federal Register on November 24, 2004 [69 Fed Reg 68690], and is available at www.ftc.gov/os/2004/11/041118disposalfrn.pdf.
The FTC has issued a new publication, “New Rule Seeks to Protect Privacy by Requiring Proper Disposal of Sensitive Consumer Information,” available at www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/alerts/disposalalrt.htm, to educate businesses about the new requirements.
The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish (bilingual counselors are available to take complaints), or to get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint form at http://www.ftc.gov. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad.
Media Contact:
Jen Schwartzman
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2674
Staff Contact:
Katherine Armstrong
Bureau of Consumer Protection
202-326-3250
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/06/disposal.shtm

Powered by Info Cubic - a pre employment screening company

By JENNIFER MEDINA

A State Supreme Court justice in Manhattan has ruled that a woman who
said she was unfairly fired from her job as a probation officer with the City Department of Correction must be reinstated. The decision came in the first case using a city law passed in 2000 that protects domestic violence victims from discrimination at work.

Although the department “may not have intentionally acted in bad faith”
in firing the employee, the result was “exactly the kind of fallout”
that the law was intended to prevent, Justice Louis B. York wrote in his decision, which lawyers received on Monday.

The woman, Gina Reynolds, had been on extended sick leave and living at
Safe Horizon, a shelter from domestic violence, in June 2002, when she
was fired. Ms. Reynolds and her lawyer contend that the department
dismissed her for not giving a valid home address.

A department spokesman declined to comment and said that the
commissioner had not reviewed the case.

Workers from the Correction Department’s Health Management Division
routinely visit officers on sick leave at home, to make sure that
employees are, in fact, ill. Ms. Reynolds had given officials the
address for Safe Horizon’s headquarters, not the shelter where she was
staying.

A health division inspector who went to the headquarters would not sign
a confidentiality agreement, so Safe Horizon officials would not tell
the inspector where Ms. Reynolds was staying, Ms. Reynolds said.

Ms. Reynolds said that when she was asked to turn in her badge,
department officials gave her no reason. But a letter rejecting Ms.
Reynolds’s request for unemployment benefits said that she had been
fired for violating sick leave rules.

“They knew what was going on,” Ms. Reynolds said. “They knew I had a
domestic problem and I was looking for a place to live.”

Ms. Reynolds’s lawyer, Mercedes M. Maldonado, said the problem could
have easily been prevented had Correction officials made an exception to their home visit policy.

“This is a classic case of a bureaucratic rule,” Ms.
Maldonado said. “Nobody was able to bend that rule.”

Laurel W. Eisner, a lawyer who helped write the part of the city human
rights law that includes domestic violence, said she was thrilled at the decision and the precedent it set.

“It’s extremely important they are using this law,” said Ms. Eisner, now executive director of Sanctuary for Families, which provides shelter and legal services. “There is so much shame coming forward telling employers. For domestic violence victims, economic independence is essential and that’s what this was meant to protect.”

Ms. Reynolds’s struggle with the Department of Correction began in March 2002, when she and her two teenage children were evicted from their apartment in Far Rockaway, Queens.� She received vacation time so that she could find a place to live, but instead had to spend two months at friends’ homes and hotels or in shelter and her car.

“I was really scared,” Ms. Reynolds said. “I didn’t know what I was
supposed to do. I was going through this whole thing not knowing what
would happen anywhere.”

When Ms. Reynolds initially told department officials she could not give them a home address, they told her she could not continue to work
without one. Eventually, she gave them her ex-husband’s address. But
when she went to his home, he would abuse her and she would then call
the police, she said.

“I kept telling them that,” Ms. Reynolds said, referring to her bosses.
“But nobody wanted to talk about something like this.”

Ms. Reynolds, who began working for the department in June 2002, had a
record of excessive tardiness and absenteeism, which, Justice York noted in the decision, could have been a byproduct of domestic violence. Under the judge’s ruling, Ms. Reynolds will receive full back pay.

Powered by Info Cubic - a pre employment screening company

Carolyn Mosley Samuel, mother of slain Reagan High School student Ortralla Mosley, has filed a civil rights suit in federal court against Austin Independent School District (AISD), seeking $23.2 million in damages, in the wake of her daughter’s on-campus murder by her ex-boyfriend Marcus McTear in March of 2003. Fifteen-year-old Mosley was stabbed to death on March 28 in a Reagan High hallway by 16-year-old McTear, who in June pleaded guilty to the murder charge. (In October, Mosley Samuel settled a wrongful death suit she filed against McTear’s parents for $300,000.) The case, the first on-campus murder in AISD history, spawned a community outcry that the district didn’t do enough to ensure the safety of its students, particularly at Reagan and other Eastside schools. The latest lawsuit alleges that AISD could likewise have done more to protect Mosley herself. In court, witnesses testified that McTear had a history of trouble with at least one previous girlfriend—and that Reagan officials were aware both of those problems and difficulties in his relationship with Mosley, including reported threats against Mosley prior to her death. “AISD employees left Ortralla Mosley in the dark regarding the grave danger in which she was,” Mosley Samuel’s attorney Sergei Kuchura wrote in the suit. “At the time immediately after [the previous] assaults or harassive acts, the district did not take effective steps to ensure that assaults and sexual harassment by Marcus McTear against female students did not continue.” The Texas Association of School Boards this summer retained Austin attorney Kevin Cole to represent the district in anticipation of Mosley Samuel’s suit. (Source: The Austin Chronicle)

Powered by Info Cubic - a pre employment screening company