Monday, April 30, 2012

The New EEOC Guidance


It has been talked about by the HR Community now for months, and it has arrived.   The New EEOC Guidance which was voted in by The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by a 4-1 vote.   Duly noted are Commissioner Barker’s comments on her rejection to vote for the guidance without a public comment period. Commissioner Barker stated “There is absolutely no justification for totally excluding the American people from this process or for this blatant failure to be transparent in how we conduct our business. I am devoted to the issue of civil rights and to the work of this Commission, but if we vote to approve this Guidance today, how can we expect the American people to have confidence that this agency operates openly and with full transparency?  We are public servants.  We work for the American people.  What could possibly justify keeping them from knowing what is in this document before we approve it?”  

Although this is guidance for employers to comply with Title VII, the nexus of the guidance is to guide employers to avoid disparate impact, not to have blanket exclusions against hiring individuals with criminal records, and review each criminal record where a hiring decision will be made case by case.  The new guidance suggests an individualized assessment where applicable with some records (inquire further with the applicant or employee). The guidance was issued to provide clarity to the previous guidance from 1987 and recommended that before using criminal history information, employers must take into consideration the following to demonstrate business necessity:
  • the nature and gravity of the offense or offenses;
  • the time that has passed since the conviction and/or completion of the sentence; and
  • the nature of the job held or sought.
Aurico believes that employers will conform to the guidance by following the best practices provided by the EEOC and although there may be changes to employer existing policies and processes, these policies are not too burdensome.  It is our recommendation that employers seek legal advice when putting together policies and procedures to conform to the guidelines.


The New Enforcement Guidance in Detail
Attached is a link to the revised Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Guidance is effective immediately.

One key factor the Commission is recommending that employers should prior to disqualifying an individual with a criminal record from employment, the employer should conduct an individualized assessment by engaging with that individual.


Criminal Records Required by Federal Law/Regulation
The Guidance indicates that employers would not violate Title VII if they determine an applicant is disqualified based on the criminal record following a federal requirement which places, restrictions on the employment of persons. On the other hand State restrictions do not preempt Title VII and employers may not defend a decision to disqualify an individual solely on State restrictions.


Job related and consistent with business necessity-Targeted screen
Two circumstances in which the Commission suggests employers will consistently meet the “job related and consistent with business necessity” defense are as follows:
  • The employer validates the criminal conduct screen for the position in question per the The Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures Standards (If data about criminal conduct as related to subsequent work performance is available and such validation is possible); or
  • The employer develops a targeted screen considering at least the nature of the crime, the time elapsed, and the nature of the job, and then provides an opportunity for an individualized assessment for people excluded by the screen to determine whether the policy as applied is job related and consistent with business necessity. 

Individualized Assessment

The Guidance lists eight possible topics of consideration in an individualized assessment, as listed below:
  • The facts and circumstances surrounding the offense or conduct
  • Evidence that the individual performed the same type of work, post-conviction, with the same or a different employer, with no known incidents of criminal conduct
  • Employment or character references and other information regarding the individual’s fitness for the particular position
  • The number of offenses for which the individual was convicted
  • Older age at the time of conviction, or release from prison
  • The length and consistency of employment history before and after the offense or conduct
  • Rehabilitation efforts, e.g., education/training
  • Whether the individual is bonded under a federal, state, or local bonding program.
The Guidance states that if the individual does not respond to the employer’s inquiries, the employer may make its decision without the information.


Arrest Record Requires Inquiry into Conduct Alleged
Individuals are “presumed innocent unless proven guilty;” thus, the Guidance says, the “arrest record standing alone may not be used to deny an employment opportunity.” However, the Guidance allows an employer to make an employment decision based on the conduct underlying the arrest if the individual would be unfit for the position because of the conduct. As illustration, the Guidance uses the situation in which an elementary school assistant principal is arrested after several young girls reported the assistant principal of inappropriate touching. School policy permits terminating employees who engage in conduct that impact the health and safety of students. The assistant principal denies committing inappropriate conduct, but the school finds the denial not credible. The school terminates his employment. In this situation, the EEOC would find no violation of Title VII because the school’s policy is linked to conduct relevant to the job and the decision is based on the underlying conduct.


Other Relevant Points
The Guidance finds that applicants that are discouraged from applying for a job because the employer has a rule for excluding individuals would have a cause for action under Title VII.

As a “best practice,” the Guidance recommends that employers not ask about convictions on job applications and that if and when they make such inquiries, the inquiries be limited to convictions for which exclusion would be job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.

The Guidance indicates that an employer best practice when narrowly tailoring their policies linking the criminal conduct to the essential functions of the position in question may assist an employer in demonstrating that its policy or practice is job related and consistent with business necessity because it “bears(s)” a demonstrable relationship to successful performance of the jobs for which it was used.


Recommended Best practices for Employers to adopt
Per the EEOC, the following are examples of best practices for employers who are considering criminal record information when making employment decisions.
  • Eliminate policies or practices that exclude people from employment based on any criminal record.
  • Train managers, hiring officials, and decision makers about Title VII and it prohibition on employment discrimination.

Developing a Policy
  1. Develop a narrowly tailored written policy and procedures for screening for criminal records
  2. Identify essential job requirements and the actual circumstances under which the jobs are performed (work off of existing job descriptions and essential functions of the job).
  3. Determine the specific offenses that may demonstrate unfitness for performing such jobs.
    • Review the criminal offenses for which you will be making a hiring decision with all available evidence.
  4. Determine the duration of exclusions for criminal conduct based on all available evidence.
    • Include an individualized assessment where applicable (not necessary in all cases).
  5. Record the justification for the policy and procedures.
  6. Note and keep a record of consultations and research considered in crafting policies and procedures.
  7. Train managers, hiring officials, and decision makers on how to implement the policy and procedures consistent with Title VII.

Questions about Criminal Records
When asking questions about criminal records, limit inquiries to records for which exclusion would be job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.


Confidentiality
Keep information about applicants and employees criminal records confident.  Only use it for the purpose for which it was intended.


Next Steps
Aurico encourages all clients to seek experienced legal counsel to assist you in addressing this guidance.  Aurico is hosting a Webinar scheduled for Tuesday May 1, 2012, giving an overview of the litigation.  Please contact Aurico for details on this free session.

As a reminder, Aurico offers file retrieval for criminal records requiring more in-depth analysis.  Please contact Aurico for more information on this service.

Information sourced from:
EEOC Enforcement Guidance

Monday, April 9, 2012

Drug Recognition Training

When reviewing your drug testing policy you should check and see if it includes post-accident testing or post-incident testing. A near miss is just as dangerous as an accident. Your supervisors should be trained to treat a near miss appropriately and require a reasonable suspicion test. A recent Quest Diagnostics Drug Test Index found that the general workforce had a 26.9% positive rate for reasonable suspicion testing.

Aurico provides reasonable suspicion training for supervisors. We provide information on the signs and symptoms of substance abuse, and cover the various classes of drugs including K2 and bath salts. The training is designed to give supervisors the knowledge and confidence to take action before someone gets hurt, as well as after an incident. The training will show how to approach someone who may have a problem and how to document supervisor actions.

Make sure your supervisors are trained and have the confidence to call for reasonable suspicion drug testing.
Learn more: http://www.aurico.com/The_Aurico_Institute/Drug_Recognition.asp

Random Drug Testing Can Increase Corporate Productivity

Aurico has spoken to many companies regarding random drug testing. Often, they have a pre-employment drug testing program but do not institute an ongoing random testing program. Reasons range from cost containment to “big brother” to “we already addressed this at time of hire.” In any of these cases, random testing is not designed to “catch” people abusing drugs—it’s a tool that can help employees make better choices.

The fact is, people change. When you do a pre-employment drug test, you’ve done your due diligence in trying to keep abusers out of your workforce. But that employee may experience some financial or personal situation that creates an opportunity for escape. Some people turn to drugs. If you do pre-employment testing and nothing further, you are doing a disservice to your organization.

The most recent Quest Diagnostics Drug Test index bears this out. It found that in pre-employment drug testing, the general workforce has a 3.6% positive rate. This same index found that in random testing and in post-accident testing, the general workforce had a 5.3% positive rate. This is notably higher than the pre-employment rate. Aurico has found that the average age of the individual testing positive is over 40 years old. We have learned that adults are also subject to peer pressure the same as teenagers. This is where random testing has a positive effect on your workforce.

Random testing is a tool to help employees make better choices when faced with either pressure to escape reality or from their peers. By having a random testing program in place, your employee is reminded that drugs are not an option. Random testing can also help the employee rebuff peer pressure by blaming their employer’s random testing program for refusing to partake in drug use. We cannot predict who will become an addict, but we can say that if your employees do not start they will not become addicts. A recent SHRM/DATIA study found a dramatic 50% increase in productivity in companies that instituted random drug testing.

Learn more about Aurico and our drug screening programs. http://www.aurico.com/Drug_Testing/

FROM THE BLOOPER BOOK: Nacho Ideal Applicants

Misdemeanor theft of nachos. An applicant who can’t remember if he committed a serious crime. People who were high or just can’t spell. Here’s the latest from the “I can’t believe they wrote that” department.

Have you been convicted of a crime in the past seven years, other than minor traffic violations? (checked yes)
If yes, describe in full: “Misdemeanor theft of nachos”

Have you been convicted of a crime in the past seven years, other than minor traffic violations? (checked yes)
If yes, describe in full: “I don’t think I have… I’ll get back to you on this one”

Have you been convicted of a crime in the past seven years, other than minor traffic violations? (checked yes)
If yes, describe in full: “postation of Drugs”

Have you been convicted of a crime in the past seven years, other than minor traffic violations? (checked yes)
If yes, describe in full: “possion of cortolled supcetiuce”

Have you been convicted of a crime in the past seven years, other than minor traffic violations? (checked yes)
If yes, describe in full: “position of parafanellia but I’m goin for a governer’s pardon wish me luck”

INDUSTRY NEWS: Best Practices for Creating a Drug Test Policy for Safety Sensitive Positions

Risk reduction strategy begins with:
  1. Having the right workplace drug testing policy language relative to pre-duty disclosure of prescription medications by employees in safety sensitive positions.
  2. Having an ADA reasonable accommodation policy in your handbook (that discusses the interactive process).
  3. Having essential job functions identified in your job descriptions that discuss working in a constant state of alertness and safe manner.
  4. Sending employees to their own doctors first for a clearance letter if they are taking prescription drugs that have safety cautions.
  5. Training your managers on what is and isn’t appropriate under the ADA.

Policy Drafting:

Writing a policy requires careful review of the regulations and applicable state laws, and often requires legal expertise. Each of the various transportation modes have unique requirements as to what must be included in the policy and in what areas employees require training. All the modes require certain training to be provided on at least the following elements: the effects and consequence of drug and alcohol use on personal health, safety and work environment; and the manifestations and behavioral cues that may indicate drug and alcohol abuse. Furthermore, all of this training must be documented.

You should review the individual transportation mode’s rules carefully. The following is a brief overview along with the section(s) of each mode’s regulations where specific criteria can be found.

INDUSTRY NEWS: DT Compliance

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) announced in February, 2012 that it has accepted the recommendations of its technical advisory committee, the Drug Testing Advisory Board (DTAB), and will proceed with revisions to the DHHS Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs. The recommendations include: (1) expanding the drug testing panel to include additional Schedule II prescription medications (e.g. hydrocodone, hydromorphone, oxycodone and oxymorphone) prescription painkiller opioid drugs, and (2) including oral fluid as an alternative specimen for Federal DFWP testing. These additions strengthen the existing federal drug abuse prevention and control programs.

The U.S. DOT has voiced its support for SAMHSA's actions, and will follow with rulemaking to amend its drug testing regulations that govern drug testing of over 9 million workers in transportation occupations. The DOT is required by law to follow HHS procedures for the drugs for which it tests and the specimens it tests.

This is pending and will not happen overnight. The federal rulemaking process is a deliberate one and there will be many months ahead of proposed rules, comment periods, further evaluation and data collection, final regulations and implementation schedules. MORE TO COME AS THIS PROGRESSES

Thursday, March 1, 2012

Comprehensive Criminal Search Strategies

Often we hear clients ask about national databases, search quality and options to access criminal reports. Our answer? Searching for criminal records isn’t the one-step process you may think it is. 

It’s easy to assume that the process is simple. After all, film and television detectives pull up a person’s criminal history with a few keystrokes. But real life isn’t that convenient. While the United States government does have a database called the National Criminal Information Center (NCIC), it’s for law enforcement use only—companies that perform pre-employment screening for non-governmental jobs do not have access. And even those who have access use additional methods, since this is not a complete database of all U.S. criminal records.

To adequately search a person’s criminal history, it’s best to go to the source of data: the court where the case was judged. However, there are thousands of courthouses across the 3,141 counties, boroughs and census areas in the United States, each with their own access limitations and requirements. Since court records are “public” by law, every county court has a method for accessing records. Although it can be complex, this is the best practice because it provides the most accurate and up-to-date information possible. If a lawsuit was filed yesterday, it’s on the public record terminal tomorrow. If a record was expunged or sealed, it’s immediately removed from the public record terminal.

Therefore, Aurico recommends searching all counties a person has had known activity in: anywhere the individual has lived, worked or attended school.  Performing county searches, along with checking other sources to locate possible offenses outside the “known” area, will provide the best possible public records check. 

While most of our clients are satisfied with county reports, many also choose to run federal court record checks. And there’s a good reason why: federal cases will not be found in any county court. While it’s statistically much less likely that you’d have a federal case than a county case (1.5% of all criminal cases are handled at the federal level), these cases can be serious–Aurico has encountered applicants with federal cases for bank robbery, racketeering, kidnapping and embezzlement, to name a few. Now you know why no one wants to “make a federal case out of it”–federal cases are serious business.

To learn more about search options, screening strategies or to review your program please contact us at 866.255.2852 or submit a request online http://www.aurico.com/About_Aurico/Aurico_Challenge.asp.