This weekly register offers quite a mix. On the one hand you have a pretty serious private investigation company that does it all. On the other, the criminal background check guidelines recently released by the EEOC are starting to gain more exposure in real world cases. Personally, I think that in the long run case law is going to be necessary to clearly spell out where the guidelines are the most necessary. Have fun and leave your feedback below.
Private Investigation and Wrongful Death Cases
While this site is mainly focused on consumer and employment background checks, once in a while I run across a company that offers way more than background check companies could ever hope to compete with. One such firm known as LiarCatchers Investigation Services is based in Lexington, Kentucky and handles just about any type of case imaginable. The firm works with local, national and even international clients, so it would seem that nothing is out of their reach. All casework is specifically designed for individual cases, and while they’re expensive, this is the type of firm I recommend to folks who have the necessary resources.
Recently LiarCatchers.com published an article about a criminal case in which a four year old boy was found dead under the porch of his home. A 20-year-old man was charged with assaulting his girlfriend’s 4-year-old son. Her family says the child was found dead under a porch at the mid-Michigan Indian reservation where they live. Currently there aren’t many developments in the case and investigators aren’t saying what lead them back to the house after search the local area for days.
What’s Missing In Employment Screening
While I don’t run across too many BlogSpot properties that actually offer relevant and useful content, I recently encountered a food review blog of all things called Life in the Lower Mainland (BC, Canada), which had a great article on the missing aspects of an employment background check. Basically, their point was that much like landlords, employers should check out a candidate’s second to last employer if possible. The theory is that an employer the applicant is no longer with has no skin in the game and will give you more honest feedback. After the person has been hired to a new position and has cut their ties with their previous employer (but before they have completed their probationary period), you can call up that employer again and ask if they would like to revise their testimony, now that they can speak more freely with no fear of on-the-job reprisal from an employee.
The EEOC Criminal Records Guidelines Tested
The recent passage of the EEOC criminal records guidelines has much of the screening industry in upheaval, and an article on the IQblog is a perfect example of what employers are now facing. A certain Bobby Coley was applying for a temporary position, and a routine background check uncovered a 1984 warrant in relation to a 1975 murder case. The temp agency instructed Coley to go to the Sheriff’s department to clear it up. Without any further prompting, Coley voluntarily went to the sheriff’s office to take care of the open case, and was told it was for a first degree murder charge dating back to 1975. “We weren’t finding anything, and so we finally looked in judicial case search and we actually saw that a warrant popped up under that name, Bobby Coley, and it said, ‘first-degree murder,’” Montgomery County Sheriff Darren Popkin said. This situation raises many issues and has started a pretty major discussion about whether he should or should not be hired. Personally, I don’t have an opinion, but would advice any potential employers to take all the facts into consideration before making a final judgment call.
Categories: Weekly Register