Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One of my friends was offered a new job, so she went ahead and submitted her two weeks notice at her current place and managed a week off between jobs. Her last day was Friday. The company ran a background check after they gave the offer, and because my friend has a misdemeanor from 8 years ago, they revoked her offer - less than a week before she was supposed to begin.
Is there anything she can do? The misdemeanor is regarding a petty theft (under $300) in a different state and she feels really stupid about it. If she can't get her old job back, she'll be SOL. And what kind of company runs a background check AFTER proposing an offer?
Yeah sucks but not really anything she can do but either ask the new company to overlook it or groven back to the old company and see if they will take her back.
I have some misdemeneanor weed charges from being younger, it makes me nervous seeking new employment which is why I would never give my two weeks prior to an offer being concrete ie no contingincies as far as background check, drug test, credit check, etc.
I feel like we are beating a dead horse here, she had to sign a permission slip to approve a background check. It isn't like all of sudden they did this secret illegal check and said never mind no job for you.
She signed it and KNEW they were going to do a search on her background. It is completely and 100 percent on her to disclose what might come out in that check. If she wasn't sure, then before she signed it, she should have asked.
Companies make their own requirements for a position. Not the applicant. Those are disclosed to applicant in the job description or asked somewhere else. As I said to furnish a job offer based on requirements not disclosed is an error and irresponsible. To expect the applicant to guess the requirements is unreasonable and that is the purpose of disclosing the requirements in the first place.
Yeah sucks but not really anything she can do but either ask the new company to overlook it or groven back to the old company and see if they will take her back.
I have some misdemeneanor weed charges from being younger, it makes me nervous seeking new employment which is why I would never give my two weeks prior to an offer being concrete ie no contingincies as far as background check, drug test, credit check, etc.
^^This.
No matter what skeletons you may or may not have in your closet. Never a good idea to give notice until all contingencies are satisfied, at least whenever possible.
Companies make their own requirements for a position. Not the applicant. Those are disclosed to applicant in the job description or asked somewhere else. As I said to furnish a job offer based on requirements not disclosed is an error and irresponsible. To expect the applicant to guess the requirements is unreasonable and that is the purpose of disclosing the requirements in the first place.
What the poster you quoted was saying is that the background check form she signed would have disclosures printed on it. That's pretty standard.
Typically background check forms have written disclosures, in the "small type" section, stating which types of records and information would be checked. Even job application forms often have some such disclosures about records checks.
There's really no reason to think this applicant didn't get anything like that unless she applied with a tiny company. Larger companies hire lawyers to write these things. Small firms often buy pre-printed forms with similar disclosures (which can be found online or even at some office supply stores).
What the poster you quoted was saying is that the background check form she signed would have disclosures printed on it. That's pretty standard.
Typically background check forms have written disclosures, in the "small type" section, stating which types of records and information would be checked. Even job application forms often have some such disclosures about records checks.
There's really no reason to think this applicant didn't get anything like that unless she applied with a tiny company. Larger companies hire lawyers to write these things. Small firms often buy pre-printed forms with similar disclosures (which can be found online or even at some office supply stores).
The question is not what the company checked. The issue is not whether the applicant knew whether the company would have access to certain information or not. The question is whether the company informed the applicant that she would be disqualified from the position after they offered her the position based on requirements that they kept to themselves.
I'm betting the applicant would not have quit her job if the company told that a misdemeanor would cause her conditional offer to be revoked.
Conditional offers are always based on the understanding that the information freely given is enough to determine that they are being given a job offer. The "condition" is that the information is correct and truthful. That is not the case here. THe information given here was correct and truthful, and the condition was based on requirements not discussed or disclosed and if that is the cause who would ever take a conditional offer seriously let alone quit current employment based on it.
Almost every company. It gets hairy (legally speaking) if you run a background check before an offer. Your friend was most definitely told the offer was contingent on successfully passing a criminal background check. She should have been up front with them about that when they said that.
It really doesn't get hairy as long as you use the same standards and make sure that you use business related reasons for refusing to hire anyone based on the background results.
The question is not what the company checked. The issue is not whether the applicant knew whether the company would have access to certain information or not. The question is whether the company informed the applicant that she would be disqualified from the position after they offered her the position based on requirements that they kept to themselves.
I'm betting the applicant would not have quit her job if the company told that a misdemeanor would cause her conditional offer to be revoked.
Conditional offers are always based on the understanding that the information freely given is enough to determine that they are being given a job offer. The "condition" is that the information is correct and truthful. That is not the case here. THe information given here was correct and truthful, and the condition was based on requirements not discussed or disclosed and if that is the cause who would ever take a conditional offer seriously let alone quit current employment based on it.
Employment lawyers have this stuff down to a science. I'm still guessing that:
1) Her job offer was "conditional on acceptable background check results" and so forth. I suspect there were disclosures regarding convictions and the usual stuff you see on employment applications. That's pretty standard unless you're talking about a tiny Ma & Pa company.
2) The background check form had some small type that said:
"information searched includes arrests, convictions, court records, [blah blah blah]"
and "employment offers can be revoked if [blah blah blah] convictions [blah blah blah]"
3) Either the original application, the conditional offer and the background forms (or all three), said something about "we reserve the right to withdraw job offers based upon [blah blah blah]" That would be her warning that a criminal conviction could disqualify her.
We're both ultimately guessing here. Maybe no one ever had her sign anything or read anything. Maybe this company has terrible lawyers. But I doubt it. We'll never know for sure unless we see her personnel file in the hiring office.
PS: That's not to say the hiring company didn't do a bad job advising her not to quit her old job until after the background check came in. They aren't required to do that, but it would have been nice.
Last edited by LOL_Whut; 07-31-2013 at 07:57 PM..
Reason: added PS
I understand, too. I just hope someone gives this woman a chance so she can make a living for herself. What worse way to discourage theft than by completely alienating an individual so they can't earn money to pay for the things they need.
So, why is my company obligated to hire someone and give them a chance?
Oh, and the person had a job. She quit it before the background results came back and she was cleared to start. Sorry, but she got herself in this position.
If the person wanted to earn money to pay for the things they need, they should have earned the money to pay for the item they stole...had they paid for that one, this whole thing would be moot.
Sorry, but I DO have issues with working with someone who was ok with resorting to theft...there's nothing to say they won't do it again, but there is also nothing to say they won't.
Agreed. This woman should never be allowed to have a job or the ability to feed herself ever again for the petty crime she committed almost a decade ago. Now where are the pitch forks, nooses, and torches?!?! Let's light this b**** up!
BRING ON THE TASERS! :P
In all seriousness, a misdemeanor from EIGHT years ago? The least they could have done was given her a chance to explain herself. I hope the OP's friend called the company and tried to tell them the situation. That wouldn't discourage me from hiring someone. If the OP is young she could have done it during her teen years, and we've all done stupid things in our lives.
Sorry, but I DO have issues with working with someone who was ok with resorting to theft...there's nothing to say they won't do it again, but there is also nothing to say they won't.
So are there any crimes that you find acceptable that you are able to work alongside people with? Just curious. I mean, I'm not sure how old this person was when they stole something, but people are still dumb when they're young so I'd be understanding of something they did when they were twenty or younger, but if she was older when she committed the crime, not so much.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
