PSY 6430 Unit 8, Pre-employment Screening

1
PSY 6430 Unit 8, Pre-employment Screening

• Application Forms, Reference Checks, Credit and
  Background Checks, Social Media, Interviews

Schedule Wednesday, 4/15 Lecture, one
lecture unit! Monday, 4/20 Exam
8 Task analysis due if grade BF
ME2 Wednesday, 4/22 Return of E8
ME2 Study objectives Monday, 4/27
ME2 at 500-700 pm
Task analysis due can leave it in
my mailbox in Wood, if you prefer
2
Application forms Biodata assessments

• As indicated in SO1, while I understand that
  biodata assessments are valid, I have a hard time
  with them because
• Invasion of privacy see questions in Tables 9.2
  and 9.3 on pages 340 and 341
• Particularly given the warning by the authors
  later in the text that invasion of privacy issues
  are likely to become more important in the future
• Nature of the work force may (and does) change
  over time and what predicts successful
  performance for current workers may not at all
  predict successful performance for new
  generations of workers, particularly given
  increasing diversity of the workforce

(cont. next slide)
3
SO2 Application Biodata assessments

• A. And, they dont add any predictive value over
  general mental ability tests
• B. Implication Employers would do as well with a
  readily available mental ability test (save time
  and money re development) and avoiding biodata
  inventories

4
SO3 Falsification of information on resumes and
application forms

• People do falsify information, for positions at
  all levels of an organization
• A study by the Society of Human Resources
  Management reported that 53 of applications
  contain false information
• The NY Times reported that 34 of applications
  contain outright lies about experience,
  education, and ability to perform the essential
  job functions
• NFE, but 41 of college students said they
  included at least one false statement on an
  application, and 95 said they were willing to do
  that
• Also NFE, but 40 of executives reported they had
  lied about their education

5
SO3, NFE examples from a 2012 article

• Marilee Jones, Dean of Admissions at MIT did not
  have any of the degrees she claimed from three
  universities
• Kenneth Lonchar, CEO of Veritas Software lied
  about having an accounting degree
• Shirley DeLibero, head of Houston Metropolitan
  Transit Authority, did not have two degrees
  listed on her resume
• Michael Brown, head of the Federal Emergency
  Agency
• Claimed he was assistant city manger when he was
  only assistant to the manager with no mgt.
  responsibilities
• Claimed he was a professor when he was only a
  student at a particular university
• Claimed to have been the national head of a trade
  group when he had only headed a regional chapter
• Did not reveal previous employment from which he
  had been terminated

Bible, J. D. (2012). Lies and damned lies Some
legal implications of resume fraud and advice
for Preventing it. Employee Relations Law
Journal, 38(3), 22-47.
(and probably once of the most infamous..)
6
SO3,NFE Examples cont.

• Any sports fans?
• In 2001, Notre Dame hired George Leary as the new
  football coach
• He was fired 5 days later for falsifying his
  credentials
• He claimed he had an MA from NYU, which he did
  not
• He claimed that he had coached a football team in
  New Hampshire, which he had not
• And, finally he claimed he had played 3 years of
  football, which he had not

7
SO3,NFE Examples, cont.

• My experience at Port Authority when I was
  working in the Personnel Department, Management
  Division
• We hired a woman as a human resources
  representative who claimed to have a very strong
  background as a personnel administrator
• She was a disaster
• About 6-8 months after she was hired, one of my
  colleagues took it upon himself to check out her
  references
• Every single one of them was false
• My colleague brought this to the attention of our
  manager, who at the time was an interim manager
  (who wanted to be the permanent manager)
• He buried the whole thing and kept her on

8
SO3,NFE One more example

• WMU, Hamman, 2010
• Hired in 2004, left in February, 2010, age 58
• Co-directed WMUs Center of Excellence for
  Simulation Research, College of Aviation, medical
  simulation work
• He was a United Airlines pilot, hired directly by
  the Dean of the College of Aviation, who had also
  been a UA pilot and who bypassed WMUs regular
  hiring process
• The co-director, Bill Rutherford, was a physician
  and also had been a pilot and executive at UA
• Hamman claimed to have a Ph.D. and a medical
  degree from University of Wisconsin-Madison
• The Center brought in over 4.2 million dollars
  in grant funding
• He left to join William Beaumont Hospital in
  Royal Oak
• In June, Beaumont discovered he did not have
  either a Ph.D. or a medical degree!

(article at the end of the sos)
9
SO3 Falsification of information on the
application form (this slide, also NFE)

• The moral of the story
• Even for high profile positions, some applicants
  falsify information, so check references!!

10
SO4 Wording to reduce falsification on
applications

• Every application form should have the following
  wording on it
• Deliberate attempts to falsify information can
  be detected and may be grounds for either not
  hiring you or for terminating you after you begin
  work
• And, the following to obtain certification by the
  applicant
• By signing this application, I declare that the
  information provided by me is complete and true
  to the best of my knowledge. I understand that
  any misrepresentation or omission on this
  application may preclude an offer of employment,
  or may result in a withdrawal of an employment
  offer, or may result in my discharge from
  employment if I am already employed at the time
  the misrepresentation or omission is discovered.
• It is much easier to fire a person because he/she
  lied on the application than it is to fire a
  person for false or incomplete information on the
  application!
• SO4, FE This type of wording has been shown to
  reduce falsification by almost 50!

11
SO5 Application blanks The more the
better danger

• Some employers think it is desirable to obtain as
  much information as possible on the application
  in order to screen applicants better
• However, the more the better danger can create
  major problems for an employer. Why?
• They are covered by EEO and AA laws
• Those laws assume that ALL questions on the
  application are used to make selection decisions
• Under a charge of unfair discrimination, the
  burden of proof may be on the employer to
  demonstrate that ALL questions are fair, and not
  discriminatory

12
SO6 (NFE) Questions to ask about application
form items - Table 9.5

• Will answers to this question, if used, have
  adverse impact on members of a protected group?
• Is this information really needed to evaluate an
  applicants competence or qualifications for the
  job?
• Does the question conflict with EEOC guidelines,
  federal or state laws, or statutes?
• Does the question constitute an invasion of
  privacy?
• Is information available that could be used to
  show that responses to a question are associated
  with success or failure on a specific job

(five questions to ask did anyone bring in an
application form from a company they work for?)
13
SO7 Questions most litigated

• Reviews of 300 federal court cases re
  applications
• Sex and age most frequent (53 of cases)
• Of those, the plaintiff won over 40
• NFE, but 20 of the cases involved questions
  relating to
• Educational requirements
• Convictions
• Work history
• Experience requirements

(cant ask for dates of attendance to high school
or college age)
14
SO8 Fair Employment Practice Laws

• The Fair Employment Practice Laws of states
  determine the legal status of pre-employment
  inquiries, and thus these are the laws that
  employers should review first when looking at
  their application forms

15
SO9 State vs. Federal laws, which are favored by
EEOC and why?

• EEOC favors state laws
• Federal laws tend to be more conservative, that
  is they favor the organization more than the
  person bringing the complaint
• Federal laws supersede state laws so state laws
  must be as conservative as federal laws
• State laws can be more liberal (favor the
  individual more)
• State laws can cover other demographic
  characteristics (Michigan laws cover people who
  are overweight and sexual orientation California
  covers cross-dressers)
• Example in book federal laws permit questions
  re criminal convictions (not arrests, but
  convictions), but some states, OH, for example,
  applicants cannot be required to disclose
  convictions for minor misdemeanor violations

16
SO10 Questions you can and cannot ask

• Turn to Table 9.6, page 354
• Cannot ask anything about marital status,
  children or child care
• Cannot ask anything that reveals the date of
  birth (when did you graduate from high school)
• Undesirable to ask about military experience
• Cannot ask about arrests, only convictions

17
SO11 Use of technology and screening resumes

• Companies are increasingly
• Optically scanning resumes
• Using keyword searches for to identify specific
  information that addresses minimum qualifications
  and credentials

Lesson When applying for jobs look for the key
words in the add and include those on your resume
(SO is worded awkwardly sorry)
18
SO12 Two legal issues re online screening

• Minority applicants may not have equal access to
  the internet and may be overlooked during the
  screening process, which could result in
  disparate impact
• Privacy third-party vendors or the web sites
  themselves may track sensitive data provided by
  applicants
• Should include a statement re privacy who will
  have access to their data?

19
SO13 Training and Experience (TE)
Evaluations (this slide, NFE)

• These are an excellent way to document a persons
  past experiences and relevant KSAs
• I particularly find the behavioral consistency
  method useful (374-377)
• Many organizations have begun to use these
• They are an excellent first step in any applicant
  screening process
• They can be easily implemented in small
  organizations as well as large ones
• Many organizations try to collect this
  information during an interview, but the
  interview
• Is not long enough to collect this information
• Does not provide a written permanent product that
  others in the organization can then evaluate

20
SO13 Training and Experience (TE)
Evaluations (this slide, NFE)

• They are based on the following assumptions
• Job applicants should be evaluated on the basis
  of behaviors that show differences between
  superior and minimally acceptable employees
• These behaviors can be identified by SMEs who
  have observed superior and marginal performance
  on the job
• Applicants past accomplishments are predictive
  of their future behaviors (sound familiar as
  behaviorists?)
• Applicants past accomplishments can be reliably
  rated by SMEs

21
SO15 Briefly describe behavioral consistency
TEs

• Job applicants describe, in narrative form, their
  past accomplishments in several job-related areas
  (usually 5-7) that have been determined to
  discriminate between excellent and marginal job
  performance
• Asked to answer questions such as
• What are examples of your past achievements that
  demonstrate the necessary abilities and skills to
  perform these job behaviors?
• What was the problem on which you worked?
• What did you do to solve the problem, and when
  did you do it?
• What was the result of your actions?
• What percentage of credit do you claim for this
  achievement?
• What are the names and contact information for
  individuals who can verify the achievement and
  the credit you claim?
• Rating scales that describe job-related behaviors
  that distinguish between superior and marginal
  performance are used by raters to evaluate the
  applicants written (now usually electronic)
  descriptions.

(I really like these questions, by the way!
SO16 NFE meta-analyses have shown estimated
validities of .45 high Page number for SO16
should be 370,1, not 371,1)
22
SO1719 Reference checking

• The principal purpose of a reference check is to
  verify what an applicant has said on the
  application form and resume
• It serves primarily as a basis for disqualifying
  an applicant, not qualifying one
• As it turns out, data indicate that the
  relationship between reference checking and
  obtaining recommendations from references have
  only a low to moderate relationship with job
  success
• Many reasons for this, but one of the main ones
  is that the applicant selects the references

23
SOs 2021 Two legal issues related to reference
checking that work against each other

• Defamation
• This is why organizations often refuse to give
  out any information about a former employee
  except the dates the person worked for the
  company
• Every organization should have this policy
• All requests for information should be forwarded
  to HR, who should refuse any information except
  the dates of employment
• Negligent hiring
• To protect itself, the hiring organization should
  seek reference information from the organizations
  with which an applicant has worked

(These are very important issues the first
discourages organizations to give out
information, The second encourages prospective
employers to get seek it and get it)
24
SO20 Defamation

• Defamation learn definition
• A written (libel) or oral (slander) false
  statement made by an employer about a previous
  employee that damages the individuals reputation
• (NFE) Text provides several case studies where
  the organization was found to have defamed a
  former employee
• A written letter that contained a statement that
  a woman had brought a charge of sexual
  discrimination against the company
• Note that the statement was true, however, the
  court found that the company illegally retaliated
  against her for exercising her rights under Title
  VII

25
SO20(NFE) Defamation

• School superintendent told a person conducting a
  reference check that
• The teacher was not really a good math teacher,
  being more concerned about living up to his
  contract than going the extra mile, and not being
  able to turn students on
• Superintendent argued those were his personal
  opinions and protected by his first amendment
  rights (free speech)
• Court ruled the statements were given with
  reckless disregard of their truth or falsity
  and therefore libel and slander were committed
  against the teacher
• Lawyers at EMU have told all of their professors
  never to write a bad recommendation letter for a
  student rather just to say no

(WMUs request that we get students to sign a
form when we provide references one more slide
on this)
26
SO20(NFE) Defamation

• These type of law suits are becoming major issues
  for organizations
• There are now firms that individuals can hire who
  will call their former employers, posing as
  potential employers (google documented reference
  check)
• https//references-etc.com
• You need to be very careful and make sure
  everyone else in the organization is careful too

27
SO21 Negligent hiring

• 21A Explain what it is
• A third party (e.g., coworker, client, customer)
  files suit against an employer for injuries
  caused by an employee
• The focus is that the employer knew or should
  have known that the employee who caused the
  injury was unfit for the job
• Thus, the employers negligence in hiring the
  individual produced the persons injuries

(note the should have known clause relevant to
Western, as it is to all universities, based on
any harm done to a student - the student or the
parent can file a law suit)
28
SO21 Negligent hiring, this slide NFE

• Western, for example, is concerned about this due
  to an event that occurred several years ago
• WMU hired a professor who was later accused of
  sexual harassment (justifiably)
• When they looked into his background and did some
  checking it turns out he had been accused of
  sexual harassment at two prior universities where
  he had worked
• But both universities had agreed to a legal
  settlement with him wherein he would leave, but
  the charges (never legally proven) would not ever
  be divulged

(not uncommon in a very rare incident in our
dept., a doctoral student was shown to have
published fake data. Beyond a doubt. Agreement
was reached that he would leave the program but
we could not divulge the information to others,
another slide)
29
SO21 Negligent hiring, this slide NFE

• Consider the situation that has just been set up
• If the prior universities had divulged the
  information to WMU, they could have been sued for
  violation of the legal settlement, and also for
  defamation of character since the charges were
  never proven
• On the other hand, WMU was subject to a negligent
  hiring law suit because we accepted the
  recommendations that were given - that is, we did
  not conduct telephone reference checks
• So guess what? We now do in-depth telephone
  reference checks for our faculty candidates
• When applying they sign a form that permits us to
  contact people other than those they list as
  references

30
SO21 Negligent hiring, this slide NFE

• Students from my Advanced Systems Analysis class
  developed the form that is still used today that
  gets permission from candidates to conduct those
  telephone references
• I found myself in a very strange situation at the
  time (I was chairing quite a few faculty searches
  in those days)
• For some reason, our then Provost, told us we had
  to send out the forms, but forbade us to send out
  the forms until after we had done the reference
  checks!
• The Director of Employment, VP of Institutional
  Equity and I all objected, to no avail
• I sent a very long email to our Dean, telling the
  Dean that as a selection specialist, I had to get
  the applicants permission before we conducted
  the reference checks, or I would be violating
  professional standards
• We did that (undercover) in our department for
  about two or three years, until they changed the
  official procedure to the correct procedure

31
SO21 Negligent hiring (FE)

• 21B. Explain the Catch 22 situation that
  organizations can find themselves in with regard
  to reference checks
• As a prospective employer, you want to seek
  information that would prevent negligent hiring,
  but past employers wont provide that information
  for fear of a defamation of character law suit

(Catch 22? Novel crazy leave military so how do
you get out of the Catch 22 - next slide)
32
SO21 Negligent hiring (FE)

• 21C.
• How can an organization get out of this Catch
  22?
• If you can prove through written documentation
  that you attempted to collect background
  information, even if the previous employer
  refused to give it, then you are OK.
• Why does this procedure protect an organization?
• As the text states, the legal question becomes
• Did the employer take reasonable steps and
  precautions to identify a problem employee, given
  the risks inherent in the tasks performed on the
  job?
• Thus, if you attempt to get the information and
  document your attempts, courts will generally
  conclude that you have taken reasonable steps
  and precautions

(The steps a potential employer should take
with documentation are provided in the text)
33
Intro Selection Interviews (NFE)

• Researchers have studied selection interviews for
  over 80 years
• Until recently, validity data were not good
• Inappropriate questions and irrelevant factors
  influenced selection recommendations
• Also, many resulted in adverse impact
• New improved interviews, validity coefficients
• Structured interviews - .44, .57, .62
• Unstructured interviews - .20, .31, .33

34
SO24 What should and should not be covered in
interviews

• Most interviews try to do too much
• There are three types of characteristics that are
  best evaluated in an interview due to the fact
  that it is a social situation
• Applied social skills, such as interpersonal and
  communication skills
• Personality and habits, such as
  conscientiousness, emotional stability and
  extraversion
• Fit with the job and organization (values, goals,
  norms, and attitudes)

35
SO25A How useful are unstructured, get
acquainted interviews? Explain.

• They are not very useful
• Interviewer tends to form subjective, global
  ratings that are not useful, although the
  interviewer believes they are (and therein lies
  the problem)
• They are confident in their own ability to
  evaluate an applicant, even though their
  decisions are being influenced by irrelevant
  factors such as physical attractiveness, the
  strength of the handshake, eye contact, etc.

36
SO25B Rapport building in interviews, intro to
study by Barrick, Stewart et al.

• Does rapport building at the beginning of an
  interview help or hurt the validity of
  interviews?
• Building rapport sets the applicant at ease and
  thus could enhance validity (you see more of the
  persons actual repertoire)
• On the other hand, if greater rapport results in
  the interview becoming more biased, then it could
  decrease validity

37
SO25B Rapport and first impressions

• First impressions do matter!
• 1958 results on average interviewers made a
  decision in four minutes
• Barrick et al. confirmed the importance of first
  impressions in a series of recent studies
• Evaluations made after a brief introduction and
  getting to know you phase and before any
  substantive questions correlated highly with
  hiring recommendations
• Implications First impressions formed early in
  interviews have a substantial effect on whether
  an interviewer recommends hiring the person

38
SO25 (NFE) Interviews and applicantsphysical
appearance, first impressions

• An applicants physical appearance has repeatedly
  been demonstrated to affect the evaluations of
  interviewers
• Eye contact, smiling, posture, hand movements,
  self-promotion, ingratiation (latter two are
  double-edged swords)
• In a number of studies, attractive individuals,
  especially women, were rated higher than
  unattractive individuals
• In another, grooming (style of hair, clothing,
  makeup, and jewelry) was related to evaluations
  of female applicants
• Clothing for women! Female applicants receive
  more favorable ratings if they wear masculine
  type clothing, i.e., a tailored navy blue suit,
  rather than a dress
• No stiletto heals
• No low cut (let alone see through) blouses
• No tight blouses, tight sweaters, or tight suit
  jackets
• No dangly earrings (same is true for men these
  days!)

(dress is very important females must dress
conservatively)
39
SO27 Two ways to reduce effects due to age,
race, sex, and other demographics

• Use highly structured interviews
• Use experienced interviewers
• Legal issues In a review of 158 federal court
  cases
• 57 of cases involved the use of an unstructured
  interview
• Only 6 involved the use of a structured
  interview
• In 41 of the cases, the unstructured interview
  was found to be the cause of the unfair
  discrimination
• In 0 of the cases, the structured interview was
  found to be the cause of the unfair
  discrimination

Not for exam
40
SO29 Interviewers give more weight to negative
than to positive information. Why?

• Even experienced interviewers give more weight to
  negative information than to positive information
• In one study, unfavorable ratings on only one of
  several characteristics resulted in the rejection
  of the applicant in over 90 of the cases
• Interviewers can usually specify why a rejected
  applicant would not be a good employee, but can
  not specify why acceptable candidates would be
  satisfactory
• Implies clearer use of negative information

(the authors give a very nice environmental
explanation for this reasons on next slide)
41
SO29 Interviewers give more weight to negative
than to positive information. Why?

• Relative costs (consequences) to the interviewer
  and the organization
• The greatest cost to the interviewer is making
  the mistake of selecting an applicant who fails
  on the job
• His/her professional reputation suffers
• Organization suffers loss of productivity
• Rejecting an applicant who would, in fact, be a
  successful performer, has no real costs
• Who would know since the person was not hired?
• Thus, cost is lowered by rejecting marginal or
  doubtful candidates

(all points FE)
42
SO33 Validity of an individual interviewer vs.
an interview panel

• There is a common belief that a panel of
  interviewers will produce more reliable, valid
  evaluations than an individual interviewer
• The data just do not support that
• (NFE) There are at least three reasons for why a
  panel may not produce more reliable and valid
  ratings
• Panel interviews tend to be more unstructured
  than individual interviews
• Facing a group of interviewers is more
  intimidating (and can be very intimidating) than
  facing an individual interviewer, and that may
  inhibit the answers from an applicant
• The social interaction between and among the
  members of the panel affect the ultimate rating
  (which may not be a good thing, particularly if
  you have a member of the panel who is a
  domineering person)

43
SO33 Validity of an individual interviewer vs.
an interview panel (this slide, NFE)

• Have any of you ever had a panel interview?
• My own experience as an applicant has always been
  bad when I have been interviewed by a panel
• I had a panel interview with the then Upjohn at
  the newly built Taj Mahal
• I had worked as an intern for two years in one of
  the departments and the manager wanted to hire me
  full-time
• There were nine members on the panel, all white,
  all male, all at least 15 years older than I was
• One of the first things that happened - I walked
  into the room, sat down at the conference table,
  and without anyone moving or saying anything, the
  door to the conference room swung shut by
  itself and locked - you could easily hear the
  locking mechanism

44
SO33 Validity of an individual interviewer vs.
an interview panel (this slide, NFE)

• I was doing OK until one member of the panel, who
  was one of the head trainers, asked me what I
  thought about a training program they had
  implemented with engineers to improve the
  functioning of their right brains (or left?? -
  whatever the creative side is supposed to be)
• The training program consisted of bringing in
  engineers and having them finger paint
• I admit I paused while I ran through a number of
  possible things I could say, one of which would
  clearly have resulted in my rejection
• I also decided that I didnt want to argue
  theory
• After a brief pause, I commented that the data
  with respect to whether training improved
  performance should drive the training program,
  and then asked him one question
• How are you evaluating the effectiveness/success
  of that training?
• What do you think? Good or bad response/question
  on my part?

45
SO33 Validity of an individual interviewer vs.
an interview panel (this slide, NFE)

• As it turns out, bad!
• He said he evaluated the results based on how
  well the engineers liked it, and then launched
  into a diatribe about the practical realities of
  organizations vs. school-book knowledge
• I was not offered the job (even though the
  manager for whom I worked with for 2 years wanted
  to hire me)

46
SO34 Consumer reports

• More and more employers are using consumer
  reports to screen applicants
• In April 2012, the EEOC issued new guidelines re
  the use of consumer reports in selection/screening
  
• Consumer reports include
• Credit checks, criminal background checks, motor
  vehicle record checks, among others
• Credit checks and criminal background checks have
  been found to have adverse impact
• The use of consumer reports is regulated by the
  Fair Credit Reporting Act (even though it covers
  more than credit checks)

47
SO34 Consumer reports

• Before an employer can obtain a consumer report
• Employers must notify applicants/employees that
  they are obtaining or may obtain a consumer
  report in writing
• Employers must obtain a written consent from
  applicants/employees

48
SO35 Consumer reports

• Before an employer can take any adverse action
  (i.e., denying employment) the employer must
  notify the person in advance
• After an employer takes an adverse action, the
  employer must provide the person with additional
  notice
• That notice must include the name, address, and
  toll-free number of the vendor that conducted the
  background check

49
SO44 Social Network Media

• In a survey of 300 hiring managers, 90 of
  recruiters reported that they visited an
  applicants social media web site
• 69 reported that they have rejected an applicant
  based on the web site
• 68 also reported that they have hired an
  applicant based on the web site

(I am going to skip to SO44 these are stats that
you really need to know)
50
SO44 Social Network Media

• Leading reasons for rejection (other surveys have
  found the same thing)
• References to drinking or drug use
• Provocative photos
• Bad mouthing previous employers
• Discriminatory comments related to race/ethnic
  background, sex, religion, etc.
• Poor writing/communication skills
• Lying about qualifications

(I am going to skip to SO44 these are stats that
you really need to know)
51
SO44 Social Network Media

• Leading reasons for hiring an applicant
• General personality
• Professional image
• Background information matched the resume
• Great communication skills
• Creativity
• Well-rounded interests

(Watch your social networking sites privacy
options!!)
52
SO45 First and foremost risk for using social
media web sites

• Run afoul of the discrimination laws
• Web sites can reveal information about protected
  status/demographics
• There havent been any major law suits yet, but
  the courts could rule, as they have for
  application blanks, any information obtained is
  assumed to be used to make selection decisions

53
SO46 NFE Social media passwords

• Yes! Some employers are requiring that applicants
  give them their social media passwords!
• I have to admit I am astonished at this
• No federal law exists yet to prohibit this but 12
  states, including Michigan, have adopted
  prohibitive laws
• No employer should do this, enough said

54
SO47 NFE Genetic Information Act

• Another very interesting issue
• When a company requires a medical examination,
  post-offer, the common practice of physicians
  asking about family medical history is a
  liability even if the information obtained is
  never provided to the prospective employer
• I have no clue where this one is going
• The article calls it a sleeper
• Only 333 cases were filed last year with the EECO
  re genetic discrimination
• In 2013, the EEOC filed two law suits citing GINA
  and ADA, both involving only one individual
• The article states that these cases alert
  employers to expect aggressive enforcement in the
  future
• (this is another stayed tuned issue)

55
SO48 NFE Protection of unemployed

• Yet another very interesting issue
• In 2011, the EEOC met to consider whether
  employers were unfairly screening out the
  unemployed and the increasing prevalence of job
  ads that discourage the unemployed from applying
• Again, there is no federal legislation and
  proposed laws in most states and municipalities
  have failed, but two states and the DC have
  enacted laws (as well as a few large cities), and
  nine states proposed bills in 2013
• States that have enacted laws New Jersey
  Oregon
• States that have proposed laws FL, IA, ME, MA,
  MN, NH, NY, PA, VA

(again, another stay tuned selection/recruitment
issue last slide)
56
The End

• Questions and Comments?

57
NFE Facebook and social media

• April 20, 2012 survey of 2,000 hiring managers
  and human resource personnel
• 37 of employers use social networking sites to
  pre-screen applicants (most use Facebook)
• 11 said they planned to start
• 34 said they had come across something that
  caused them not to hire the person
• Provocative photo
• References to drinking or drug use
• Other red flags speaking badly about a former
  employer, making discriminatory comments related
  to race, gender, religion, etc., lying about
  qualifications, not writing well

(study conducted by Harris Interactive
commissioned by the website Career Builder
privacy settings Some employers have even asked
applicants to give them their username and
password hand out article )
58
NFE Facebook and social media

• Legal status
• In 2012, Delaware, Maryland, Washington passed
  legislation prohibiting employers from
  requesting/requiring usernames and passwords
• Michigan passed similar legislation on 12/28/12
• Similar laws are pending in other states
• CA, IL, MA, NY, OH, SC
• A bill has been introduced in the U.S. House of
  Representatives

But, remember, the bills do not prohibit
companies from looking at your social networking
sites they only ban asking applicants for
usernames and passwords. So.be careful what you
put online!