Aurico wins 2012 SCORE Award

We are proud and honored to announce that Aurico Reports, Inc. has been chosen as the recipient of the 2012 SCORE Award for Outstanding Veteran-Owned Small Business sponsored by Insperity. We will be traveling to New Orleans, Louisiana to receive the award on Thursday, August 16th.

SCORE, mentors to America's small businesses, serves over 350,000 clients annually and honors their most successful clients at the SCORE Foundation's annual award ceremony. We began working with a team of 4 SCORE mentors in 2009 and their free business expertise has proven to be invaluable for our enterprise. We truly would not have been able to achieve the level of success that we have without their guidance.

Through our partnership with SCORE, Aurico is well positioned to support our clients long into the future. Thank you SCORE team!

Indiana Criminal Reporting Act restricts criminal records for inquiring, disclosing and reporting.

Important changes for employers:

The law provides that, effective July 1, 2012, residents of Indiana with restricted or sealed criminal records may legally state on an “application for employment or any other document” that they have not been adjudicated, arrested or convicted of the offense recorded in the restricted records. In addition, covered employers will be prohibited from asking an “employee, contract employee or applicant” about sealed and restricted criminal records. The law does not define the term “employer” and does not specifically address what it means for applicants and employees to be able to “legally” state on documents that they do not have certain previous criminal records.

Important changes on what information can be disclosed by Indiana courts to an employer or to Aurico/CRAs:

Also effective July 1, 2012, the law will restrict information that individuals and businesses such as employers and CRAs can obtain from Indiana state court clerks.

Aurico receives A+ rating from the Better Business Bureau

Aurico just received an A+, the highest rating from the Better Business Bureau. This score is based on 16 factors, including the length of time we’ve been in business and zero previous complaints with the BBB.

As an Aurico client, you now have the added confidence of knowing that we meet BBB accreditation standards. Specifically, we:

• Have never had a complaint filed with the BBB
• Operate a business within acceptable categories
• Have been in business for more than 20 years (since 1991)
• Provide adequate background information
• Are willing to honor commitments to the BBB
• Meet licensing and government actions requirements
• Follow BBB advertising guidelines

Click here to read our BBB Business Review page

Is Your Background Screening Company Accredited?

The National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS) certifies an accreditation program for employment screening companies. Governed by a strict and thorough set of professional standards, it is a widely recognized seal of approval that brings national recognition to a background screening organization for its commitment to excellence, accountability, high professional standards and continued institutional improvement.

There are 450+ NAPBS members and only 24 NAPBS accredited companies—about 3%. The program requires accredited companies to submit to an onsite audit of 58 standards that promote best practices and requires evidence that the organization complies with EEO and FCRA as well as other state and federal laws and regulations.

California makes it clear that med-pot does not protect workers under the ADA

In James v. City of Costa Mesa

The first of these decisions from the Ninth Circuit means that California employers are now free under state and federal law to prohibit marijuana use or possession in the workplace and working while under the influence. See also Ross v. Ragingwire Telecomms., Inc., 174 P.3d 200 (Cal. 2008)

In hearing a challenge to two California cities’ decisions to bar med-pot dispensaries within their borders, the Ninth Circuit in James held in a 2-1 vote that plaintiffs using medical marijuana under California law were not “individuals with disabilities” under the ADA and thus not entitled to its protections. Although the lawsuit was not an employment case, it nonetheless addressed the same definition of “individuals with disabilities” used in Title I of the ADA, the act’s employment provisions. Given a strong and reasoned dissenting opinion, one can expect a request for the Ninth Circuit to decide the matter en banc (through an 11-judge panel).

To read the full opinion of the court click here: James v. City of Costa Mesa

 

FROM THE BLOOPER BOOK: Next time, maybe they’ll give a straight answer

When we’re performing in-depth background screenings, the last thing we expect to find is a punch line. But sometimes that’s what we get. Here are unexpected responses we received that are guaranteed to make you wonder “what were they thinking?”

Application Question: Who should we contact in case of emergency?
Answer: 911

Application Question: Dates of employment?
Answer: Monday to Friday

Reference Verification:  
“In general he was a decent human being. I never got the spider senses tingling."

Researcher: “Are you aware of any weaknesses in his performance?”
Response: “No. He’s a strong, mighty man”

Data broker Spokeo, Inc. settles with the Federal Trade Commission.

Spokeo, Inc. collected information about individuals from online and offline sources to create profiles that included contact information, marital status, age range and in some cases included a person’s hobbies, ethnicity, religion, participation on social networking sites and photos that Spokeo attributed to a particular individual. Spokeo marketed these profiles to companies in the human resources, background screening and recruiting industries as information to serve as a factor in deciding whether to interview or hire a job candidate. The FTC concluded that Spokeo acted as a consumer reporting agency and thus violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by (1) failing to ensure the consumer reports it sold were used for legally permissible purposes (2) failing to ensure that the information it sold was accurate, and (3) failing to inform users of Spokeo's consumer reports of their obligations under the FCRA. Spokeo agreed to pay $800,000 and comply with the FCRA going forward, among other things.

The message to employers with this settlement is: If you receive profile information from data brokers and use that information in making employment decisions, the FCRA applies. Although this enforcement action was directed to the data broker, the FTC could next go after the employer. The FTC has published guidance on how to avoid an enforcement action in these circumstances and comply with the FCRA at: Using Consumer Reports: What Employers Need to Know, also employers should be aware of the local and state laws that may apply.

Aurico provides our clients with sample forms, guidance and information to help you comply with the FCRA and state laws. Aurico recommends employers seek legal counsel and review their polices on an annual basis to assure continued compliance with the FCRA, EEOC and state-specific laws and regulations.