Good Example Of Report On Would Mandatory Background Checks For

All Employees Reduce Negligent Hiring Lawsuits?

Introduction
Many employers and organizations would like to ensure that a prospective or existing employee can be trusted with important job responsibilities, vital information, finances, and other company resources the reason they resort to background checks. A background check, by definition, is an investigative process whereby an individual’s educational, financial, employment and other records are looked up, compiled and used for legal and related purposes. Ideally, mandatory or compulsory background investigations should minimize negligent hiring lawsuits when done legally and thoroughly by an organization or accredited background-checking companies that conduct them on potential or current employees.

Body

Mandatory background checks could reduce negligent hiring lawsuits, which occur given the following conditions : First, there is an employer-employee relationship; Second, when an employee’s incompetence resulted to a violation against another person or company; Third, when an employer has awareness of an employee’s incompetence; and, fourth, when an employer has not conducted a background screening. When mandatory background investigations for employees are done properly, they could minimize negligent hiring lawsuits. Nonetheless, background checks have without potential benefits, consequences, and limitations given various ways of knowing a person well.
Among the advantages of background checks on employees include, but not limited to the possible assurance of obtaining the genuine or false identity of a prospective or existing employee. Additionally, background investigations help verify the individual applicant’s or employee’s educational attainment and employment history. Likewise, screening of a person’s background would most likely reveal his or her legal and criminal history (such as, sex offense conviction, substance abuse), if any. Further, background screening might prevent discriminatory acts against an individual’s cleared past records (such as, lawfully filed bankruptcy records).
On the other side of the coin, background checks on employees entail many potential consequences, as well. First, background investigations may improve workplace safety and protection. In other words, screening an applicant’s or employee’s background would most possibly help prevent or minimize workplace violence by avoiding hiring individuals who conceal unpredictable behavior and history of criminal and illegal activities. In case of error or inaccuracy in a prospective applicant’s or employee’s background records, he or she could face workplace discrimination, loss of employment and/or denied job opportunities. Hence, most, if not, all possible legal cautions and measures must be resorted to in reducing negligent hiring lawsuits by overcoming inherent limitations of background screening .
Ideally, all employees should undergo formal background investigations based on existing federal laws and state regulations. With mandatory background checks by well-established and professionally reputable investigation firms, there is a greater chance of avoiding possible company liabilities and ensuing lawsuits from an aggrieved employee who was harmed by another employee with hideous background records.

Conclusion

As the HR manager, disputed information could be resolved by making an additional and thorough background checks to uncover more information about an employee who claimed inaccurate background investigation. If he or she has clear background history, he or she should be given the opportunity fitting any qualified job applicants or existing employee.

References

Rao, P. (2011). Taking sides: clashing views in human resource management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Wells, S. (2008, February 1). Ground Rules on Background Checks. HR Magazine, 53(2), pp. 47-48, 50, 52, 54.