Truth in Hiring: A Perennial Headache for Managers

What do you say when a competitor calls you for the scoop on one of your former guards? Do you truthfully report that the person performed his job to barely minimum standards, was chronically late, had a history of calling in sick on Mondays and Fridays, and got a 16 year old intern in the office pregnant? Or do you say - equally truthfully - that the employee was hired on a certain date at a given salary, and voluntarily resigned on this date at that salary? Now, say the tables are turned and you're doing the calling about a person you'd like hire. What do you want an applicant's former employers to tell you - the full truth or selected portions of it?

Fern Abbott, president of Guardscreen, the security guard screening network in Metuchen, N.J. says clients have told her they "don't care what happens to employees once they leave," and won't answer anything beyond name, rank and serial number. "They don't want to get sued and they don't care if a problem employee becomes their competitor's headache." Still, Abbott agrees, " It's tough to make intelligent hiring decisions if you don't know the truth about people."

Sue Willman, a labor attorney with Payless Cashways Inc. of Kansas City, Missouri, says, "... if you make the choice to discuss material information, the law requires you to be completely truthful." The keyword is "material" - meaning information that is job-related and important, essential or able to influence the employment decision.

What defines "material" depends on the priorities and standards of the particular security employer. If a crisp uniform is important in maintaining a professional image among your guards, then the fact that one employee always reports for duty looking like he slept in his clothes may become a material employment issue.

Also important is the way you deliver information. If you tell a reference caller, "Joe consistently failed to maintain our firm's appearance standards," that may be derogatory, but it's not defamatory. On the other hand, if you say, "Joe looks like a pig," that is defamatory and could come back to haunt you. "It's not so much what you say, but how you say it," Guardscreen's Abbott notes.

Willman says employers are getting into the litigation act themselves and have filed negligent referral suits against other companies for not informing them of bad experiences with their former workers. That leaves employers in a catch 22. If you don't provide negative information, another company can sue you for negligent referral. She encourages employers to establish a network through which companies provide each other essential facts about former employees. "There is an underground network," she claims, and anyone who denies it is either out of the loop or not being honest.

"The pressure is definitely on the prospective employer to check references and qualifications for every applicant," says Pat Tomaselli, security manager for Westinghouse Electric's Marine Division in Sunnydale, Calif. "Pre-employment screening is the most effective way to do that." She warns employers not to rely on database services that offer to research criminal records for you. "Many take arrest reports [not convictions] straight out of the newspaper. Besides newspapers aren't always accurate; they get names and other information wrong."

Tomaselli also advises employers not to work off a resume. Employees can pad their credentials and experiences or omit the employers they don't want you contacting for references. As further legal protection, Tomaselli advises including a liability disclaimer [on the employment application] stating that the information provided is correct and that any false statement may be grounds for dismissal.