On April 19, 2013, Colorado passed a law which restricts an employer’s use of consumer credit information for employment purposes. The legislation is called the “Employment Opportunity Act” and goes into effect on July 1^st, 2013.

The new law prohibits an employer from using credit information for employment purposes unless the information is substantially related to the employee’s current or potential job.  “Employment purposes” is defined in the Act as “evaluating a person for employment, hiring, promotion, demotion, reassignment, adjustment in compensation level, or retention as an employee.”

Also, an employer may not require an employee to consent to a request for a credit report that contains information about the employee’s credit score, credit account balances, payment history, savings or checking account balances, or savings or checking account numbers as a condition of employment. Consumer credit information includes a credit score but does not include the address, name, or date of birth of an employee associated with a social security number.

Exceptions to these restrictions include:

1. The employer is a bank or financial institution;
2. The report is required by law;
3. (1) The report is substantially related to the employee’s current or potential job and (2) the employer has a bona fide purpose for requesting or using information in the credit report that (i) is substantially related to the employee’s current or potential job and (ii) is disclosed in writing to the employee.

A consumer credit report is considered “substantially related to the employee’s current or potential job” if the information is related to the position because:

(a) the position is either

(1) an executive or management position or
(2) professional staff to executive or management personnel and

(b) the position involves one or more of the following:

(1) Setting the direction or control of a business, division, unit, or an agency of a business,
(2) A fiduciary responsibility to the employer,
(3) Access to customers’, employees, or the employer’s personal or financial information other than information customarily provided in a retail transaction, or
(4) The authority to issue payments, collect debts, or enter into contracts.

A consumer credit report is also considered “substantially related to the employee’s current or potential job” if the information is related to the position because the position involves contracts with defense, intelligence, national security, or space agencies of the federal government.

If an employer relies on consumer credit information when taking an adverse employment action, it must disclose that and disclose the particular information it relied upon. The disclosure must be made to an employee in writing or to an applicant in the same medium as the application (e.g., electronically for an electronic application).

Civil penalties can be awarded up to $2,500 for injuries as a result of a violation of the Act.

The Act may be viewed here: http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2013a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/
5E2C07DC74DD73D687257AEE0057DC52?Open&file=018_enr.pdf

A new law has been passed in California as it relates to employers mandating applicants or employees to provide usernames or passwords to social media websites such as LinkedIn or Facebook. It is now illegal for California Employers to request or demand this information.

AB 1844 was signed by Governor Brown in September and reads in part as follows:

CHAPTER  2.5. Employer Use of Social Media 980.

 (a) As used in this chapter, “social media” means an electronic service or account, or electronic content, including, but not limited to, videos, still photographs, blogs, video blogs, podcasts, instant and text messages, email, online services or accounts, or Internet Web site profiles or locations.

(b) An employer shall not require or request an employee or applicant for employment to do any of the following:

(1) Disclose a username or password for the purpose of accessing personal social media.

(2) Access personal social media in the presence of the employer.

(3) Divulge any personal social media, except as provided in subdivision (c).

(c) Nothing in this section shall affect an employer’s existing rights and obligations to request an employee to divulge personal social media reasonably believed to be relevant to an investigation of allegations of employee misconduct or employee violation of applicable laws and regulations, provided that the social media is used solely for purposes of that investigation or a related proceeding.

(d) Nothing in this section precludes an employer from requiring or requesting an employee to disclose a username, password, or other method for the purpose of accessing an employer-issued electronic device.

(e) An employer shall not discharge, discipline, threaten to discharge or discipline, or otherwise retaliate against an employee or applicant for not complying with a request or demand by the employer that violates this section. However, this section does not prohibit an employer from terminating or otherwise taking an adverse action against an employee or applicant if otherwise permitted by law.

Employers Investigative Services strives to keep our clients up to date with new industry information. It’s important to know that conducting a search using social media is not considered “best practices” in the industry. In fact, it is exactly the opposite. Often times, information found in this manner can be incorrect or illegal to use for hiring purposes.

To discuss your pre-employment screening needs, please contact us at 866-350-5638 or via the web at www.eischecks.com

Bottom line, there has been an increase in turnaround times and costs of background checks in most areas. This sounds like a double negative and can easily be turned against your pre-employment screening firm. But is it their fault?

Research says no. Why? With the recent economic downturn, courts across the country have either cut back on staff or instituted little known court fees for conducting research for civil and criminal files. Quite often, both are true.

Counties are strapped with the chore of trying to find ways to save and earn income to support their departments. Many have cut staffing hours for the local courthouses, including some that are open just one or two days a week. Some courts are charging a tax of up to $35.00 per name to be searched. Many of these courts don’t have a public access terminal or online access so researchers are forced to use the clerk at the desk to research their request by hand. This takes time and money.

Pre-employment screening firms across the country are doing their best to counter this problem but ultimately, it appears it is out of their hands. The courts pass policies and procedures and the researchers and screening firms have no choice in the matter. Ultimately, this affects the end user of the consumer report by costing more and taking a bit longer to get the results.

Other screening firms, including online date only firms, are fighting this by selling a database solution to their clients. Some see this as a dangerous way to offset the problem because of the lack of completeness that inherently comes with a database search. Often, these searches are not updated by the courts or the courts simply don’t report into them at all. This leads a wide open hole in any pre-employment screening program.

When it comes to such a litigious matter like pre-employment background checks, it’s important to insulate yourself as much as possible, while still keeping in mind your bottom line. Often times, if you have a professional screening firm working for you, a simple phone call will help. They can help you balance your needs versus the cost and time it takes to complete an industry compliant and acceptable background check.

The bottom line is with the changing times of the economy, background checks that are done right, will change slightly as well. We all hope this is temporary and as the economy grows, the industry will get back to normal. But, for now, simply communicating with your firm will often times help you get through this tough time.

For questions about how to streamline your pre-employment screening solutions or anything else industry related, please contact Dusty Lefdal at Employers Investigative Services via toll free phone at 866-350-5638 or email dlefdal@eischecks.com.

Employers Investigative Services has asked a serious question of their clients. “Are you tired of hearing from us yet?” Luckily, the response has been positive and reassuring. Still, the employees at eischecks.com have come to believe there is a faster, easier approach to completing some of the searches involved in pre-employment background check.

Time and time again, a certain group of searches have taken a bit longer to complete than Employers Investigative Services would have wanted. Some of these searches include Employment Verifications, Education Verifications, Nationwide Wants and Warrants Searches and Consent Based Social Security Verification Services.

The main cause for these delays is because once E.I.S. receives the request; it is immediately dispatched to the appropriate agency, company, school, etc. Then, a notification is sent to the Client, advising we need a copy of the signed release. Once that is received, the release is then sent along to the appropriate organization. This is very time consuming and, they haven’t even got the results back yet, which can take weeks depending on the school or business.

Employers Investigative Services has streamlined this process by allowing clients to upload their Signed Release Form at the time of order, directly into the Client Portal. This saves time and money by not having to wait for a Customer Service Representative to contact the client and request the form. Since its deployment only weeks ago, E.I.S. Managers have seen a drastic decrease in Turn Around Times, surrounding searches requiring a signed release.

If you don’t see this option on your account, please contact your CSR or email Employers Investigative Services at info@eischecks.com.

If you want more information on how to streamline your hiring process and possibly save money at the same time, give E.I.S. a call at 866-350-5638 or visit their website at www.eischecks.com!

EEOC Issues New Guidelines for Employers. Is Your Policy Accurate?

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission yesterday, issued new guidelines for employers when they utilize background checks for employment purposes. The guidelines simplified and put in writing, what most reputable pre-employment screening firms have known and have tried to impart on their clients since the original 1987 ruling came down.

Employers must show a nexus between the conviction and the position to be filled. The EEOC has also indicated that using arrest information only is not the best idea, because an arrest does not equal a conviction.

The EEOC has been in the news a lot recently, mainly due to the large class-action lawsuits involving Pepsi and Domino’s Pizza. Both suits have alleged policy and law violations. Both have been brought forward by The EEOC.

Pepsi has settled their lawsuit which alleged violations of the FCRA and anti-discrimination laws. Pepsi’s blanket policy of not hiring convicted criminals was alleged by The EEOC to be unlawful and discriminatory towards minorities.

Recent studies show 1 in 3 black males will end up in prison, while only 1 in 17 white males will be imprisoned in the same time period. The EEOC believes that a blanket policy, such as Pepsi’s, will not allow for minorities to get a fair look while attempting to gain employment.

The 4-1 vote by The EEOC is being touted as a huge victory by human rights advocates and the unemployed. That being said, many in the industry that have been involved in background screening for employment, have been attempting to institute a policy or get their clients to institute a policy, based on a case-by-case scenario.

Employer Advocates were happy to see that The EEOC did not bar background checks from being conducted. These advocates advise that responsible employers should have been practicing these policies for a while. Now, with the new 55 page ruling, employers will be more educated and willing to update their policies, for fear of violating anti-discrimination laws.

The simple fact is, there is no “Big Box or Blanket Approach” to pre-employment screening. Each applicant now needs to be treated on a case-by-case approach and employers must be able to articulate the nexus between the position to be filled and the applicant’s background check. This includes asking for information from your screening company, which may not be appropriate to know, based upon the position being filled.

For more information on the ruling, or for free help determining whether your background policy is up to date or streamlined for performance, contact Employers Investigative Services or call 866-350-5638.

Anita Collins, 67 of New York, has been formally charged with embezzling about $1 million from The NY Archdiocese while working in the finance office. Collins had been hired in 2003; however the church did not conduct a background check. She does have a criminal history of theft.

Church and law enforcement officials state Collins had sent false invoices to the archdiocese and then issued checks in small amounts (enough to stay under the radar) to cover the invalid invoices. The theft issue was eventually located by utilization of a 3^rd party audit.

The church now conducts criminal background checks of their new employees.

Organizations of any type can benefit from using a professional pre-employment screening firm. Employers Investigative Services is a nationwide provider of background checks and drug testing. Firms such as E.I.S. utilize hands-on court researchers all over the country to investigate criminal history of applicants and can provide a very cost effective and fast solution.

ALLEGING VIOLATIONS OF FCRA

January 25, 2012

The US District Court has ruled Plaintiff’s may move forward with allegations of violations of The Fair Credit Reporting Act, claiming Domino’s Pizza, LLC violated the law.

In a long opinion, the court claims 2 specific violations; 1. Domino’s violated The FCRA by not providing their applicants with proper, written authorization and 2; failing to provide employees with copies of their background checks, prior to taking adverse action.

What makes this even worse for Dominos? The court also ruled that these violations are “willful” in nature. Dominos argues this point and states the way the laws are written, it is unreasonable to believe in every instance to follow these guidelines. The court, disagreed.

Kai Richter, the Plaintiff’s Attorney, “We are pleased with the Court’s ruling and eager to move forward with our claims.”Richter went on to explain how the FCRA is important and in order to protect consumers and applicants, it must be followed.

Reputable pre-employment screening and consultant firms, such as Employers Investigative Services, provides copies of disclosure forms, as well as free Pre-Adverse and Adverse Action letters and services.

“When we are talking about the highly litigious world of Pre-Employment Screening, the term ‘Best Practices’ gets thrown around a lot,” says Dusty Lefdal of Employers Investigative Services, a Northern California Based Pre-Employment Screening and Consultant Firm. “We have had great success with simply helping to educate our clients on the law and compliance, and not make a dime from it. It’s easier and cheaper for us to take a few minutes to explain it to our client, than it is for us to stand alongside of them in court.”

For more information on this article or to have Employers Investigative Services take a free look at your pre-employment process, contact them at 866-350-5638 or visit www.eischecks.com.

California has joined the ranks of a multitude of other states, including HI, IL, MD, OR, WA & CT, by banning the use of credit reports for pre-employment background checks.

Governor Brown signed AB22 into law and became effective, January 1^st, 2012. This law says that employers may not utilize credit reports for pre-hire decisions, unless it specifically pertains to the position being filled. Some of the reasons California Employers may utilize credit reports are outlined below:

• A position in the state Department of Justice
• A managerial position
• A sworn peace officer or other law enforcement position
• A position for which the information contained in the report is required by law to be disclosed or obtained
• A position that involves regular access to specified personal information for any purpose other than the routine solicitation and processing of credit card applications in a retail establishment
• A position in which the person is or would be a named signatory on the employer’s bank or credit card account, or authorized to transfer money or enter into financial contracts on the employer’s behalf
• A position that involves access to confidential or proprietary information
• A position that involves regular access to $10,000 or more of cash.

If applicant’s fall under any of the above criteria, the new law states that the applicant must be told in writing that a credit report is being requested and the applicant must sign a written authorization request.

For more information pertaining to this new law, or for more information on background checks and drug testing, contact Employers Investigative Services or visit www.eischecks.com.

We've Come a Long Way!

The pre-employment screening industry has changed dramatically through the years. Just a decade ago, background checks were ordered by faxing a signed release along with the type of search you would like conducted, to your pre-employment screening firm. Or worse yet, companies would do their own background checks and have no clue as to whether or not they were being compliant with state laws. Another downside was, it was impossible for a company knowing which jurisdictions to search.

Along comes technology and along with it, come speed, accuracy and a substantial decrease in costs. Some backgrounds could cost over a hundred dollars. Now, those same reports are costing around $25 to $40. Background checks would have to be processed by hand and manually organized and dispatched. Now, most searches are automatically dispatched and categorized by type or client name.

One of the biggest advances has to do with Applicant Supplied Data systems. Some companies charge for this service, but there are still a few companies that offer this for free, simply to speed up and make the ordering process easier on the Human Resources Professionals. Now, HR Personnel simply need to input an applicant’s name and email address once finished, and the applicant does the rest through a secure online transaction. Even the mandated release forms are electronically provided to the applicant and permanent records are kept. This way of doing business has saved countless hours and costs by reducing time and paper. An added benefit of Applicant Supplied Data is now; your applicant can prove to you how serious they are about applying for a position with your organization. If the applicant doesn’t complete the request within a timely manner, this behavior can be used during the hiring process or you can simply cancel the request.

Even drug screening has gotten faster, cheaper and paperless. No more chain of custody forms and limited reach. With paperless solutions, drug testing locations can be found virtually everywhere with just the click of a button. This solution is worth its weight in gold for a company that is looking for a paperless office environment or an organization with nationwide footprints.

To learn more about advanced technology in background checks, including Applicant Supplied Data, Human Resources Integrations and paperless drug testing solutions, contact a service representative at Employers Investigative Services at 866-350-5638 or visit us on the web at www.eischecks.com.

New Legislation for Connecticut 

Signed by Governor Malloy, SB 361 will prohibit employers from using credit reports for pre-employment and promotion purposes, unless the employer can specifically articulate how it directly relates to the position. This new law will go into effect in Connecticut  on 10/01/2011 and applies to all CT employers with at least one employee. CT joins 5 other states (HI, IL, MD, OR & WA) that currently utilize the same type of legislation.

S.B. 361 outlaws most CT employers from requiring applicants or employees to consent to a credit report as a condition of employment.  There are exceptions to the statute, such as employers that are financial institutions as defined under law; employers that are required by law to obtain credit reports, and credit reports that are “substantially related to the employee’s current or potential job.”

Such as:

·        Managerial position that involves direction or control of business

·        Positions that have access to financial information

·        Positions that involve financial responsibilities to the employer

·        Provides credit or debit cards for the company

·        Has or provides certain confidential business information

·        Has or is involved in the employer’s non-financial assets of $2,005 or more

Employer’s Investigative Services strongly suggests that employers that are in any way tied with hiring decisions in CT contact their legal counsel and discuss their policies in detail.

***The above statement is an opinion of Employer’s Investigative Services and shall not be considered a direct translation of the law. We are not attorneys and any questions should be forwarded to your legal counsel. Thank you.***

The Economy & Background Checks

Companies all over the country are seeing their budgets shrink and more funds are being allocated to the pre-employment screening process now, more than ever. It seems like costs have increased for everything from break-room supplies to criminal history checks.

It’s true that a lot of background screening companies have increased their fees to compensate for smaller margins due to higher prices in fuel, technology and taxes. A different trend seems to be assisting the increase in costs as well; increased court access and motor vehicle records fees.

In this depressed economy, more states and counties are either instituting a Court Access Fee or are no longer “waiving” the fees that they have had in place for years. More and more court researchers are paying out of their own pocket when accessing these records, and then they must wait to get reimbursed from their clients. Government agencies are seeing the access to public records as a fairly easy way to gain revenue that was otherwise never even imagined. And courts across the country have ruled that as long as the fees are fair and are not preventing the average person from accessing these public records, then it is legal to collect these fees.

What does this mean to you, the client? In short it means higher prices. Some pre-employment screening companies will charge a percentage on top of the court or state fee and make a profit off of that. Some companies simply pass the cost onto the client, without mark-up.  Some companies take it a step further and have actually reduced their costs of certain searches to help mitigate the effect of higher Court Access Fees.

It’s important to know what your screening company’s policies are when it comes to 3^rd Party Access Fees. Just because you are seeing an increase in your invoice, doesn’t necessarily mean that your provider is putting more money in their pocket. Each vendor is different in how they handle their access fees. Make sure to ask questions of your vendor to ensure you are saving money. Even a couple of bucks on a background check will add up at the end of the year.

Employers Investigative Services strives to be as transparent as possible when it comes to collecting court and state fees. Clients of Employers Investigative Services enjoy the knowledge that they do not have to pay any marked-up access fees and some of the lowest prices in the industry.

For more information to compare your current provider with Employers Investigative Services, contact Jeremy Lockett at: jlockett@eischecks.com or call toll free: 866.350.5638 ext 11.

Court Structures….Did You Know? 

“Liability!” You hear it every day and try to push it “downstream” as often as you can. You hire a background screening firm to help legally insulate you from it. The screening firm hires lawyers and researchers and buys massive amounts of insurance to help insulate itself from liability….and still…….it looms.

What does liability have to do with the different structures of courts? Simply put, background screening firms need to make their clients aware of what is being searched, and where. Too often, clients of Credit Reporting Agencies are expecting an in-depth, felony and misdemeanor search of all applicants, regardless of the jurisdiction that is being searched. It’s simply not the case and not always feasible due to turn around times and increased costs and the complex structures of several court systems around the U.S. 

With the thousands of different courts strewn across the country, there are bound to be some variations in the way each county or state structures their criminal courts. It’s simply not possible to have all the courts, in all of the counties across the nation to be the same. 

Unfortunately, the reality is each state has their own laws when it comes to structuring their court systems. Rarely (if ever) do the states keep in mind the poor, hapless, innocent researchers and document retrieval professionals, who work their fingers to the bone every day, for mere pennies. Ok, it may not be for pennies and they may not be hapless, but they do indeed have to bear the burden of these ill-conceived layouts. This leaves the professional screener or researcher left dangling and often times, exceptions need to be made in order to satisfy the pre-employment screening industry. 

A large amount of states and counties have merged their courts. This allows for a simplified way of searching for both felony and misdemeanor records in the same location. But even then, a variation is often thrown into the mix. Sometimes, due to the large size of the county, multiple courthouses exist. Often times, these courthouses don’t contain records from other districts within the same county. This means different courthouses need to be checked for possible records, even within the same county. 

Several states still have separated their felony and misdemeanor courts even further. Often times, this means only felony records can be searched in these states. In order to obtain misdemeanor records, a separate search is required and even then, it may not be possible or feasible due to geography, volume, court policies or budget issues. 

Now, we all know that budgets don’t really play a role in background screening…right? Well, federal and state courts all seem to agree with that philosophy. More and more courts every year are basically telling the employer and the reporting agency that regardless of the amount of money it costs to do a background check, it’ll be cheaper than when they get sued for millions of dollars due to ‘over-reporting’, ‘under-reporting’, negligent hiring’, ‘negligent retention’, violating the FCRA, violating state law, violating EEOC guidelines or any of the other hundreds of things employer’s face. So, you are better off searching all of the available jurisdictions. 

Unfortunately there is no “catch-all” or “one size fits all” approach to background screening. Professional organizations like Employer’s Investigative Services and dozens of others will tell you this, right from the beginning. Please be wary of those online providers or fly-by-night background companies who do not believe in transparency or advise you of “Best Practices” in the industry. 

Ask your provider about a list of “Felony Only” jurisdictions and inquire about how to obtain misdemeanor records and what the cost would be. There is almost always an additional fee due to the amount of extra work that is needed. But, maybe the courts aren’t completely mistaken. Maybe it is cheaper to spend thirty dollars on a background check than 1.3 Million Dollars in a settlement. 

Employer’s Investigative Services prides itself on transparency and a “small business approach” to a big business requirement. Ask us today about what courts are covered and how Employer’s Investigative Services can help both, mitigate your liability and decrease your costs.

Beginning January 1, 2012, SB 909 will be in full affect. The bill signed by, then Governor -Arnold Schwarzenegger, effects how Consumer Reporting Agencies conduct business.

Beginning in 2012, Professional Background Screeners and Consumer Reporting Agencies in California must post their Privacy Policies on their website and must be able to provide a written copy upon request of the consumer. Also, the consumer must be provided with the contact information of the Consumer Reporting Agency, on a separate sheet that is part of the Privacy Policy.

One of the most important aspects of this new law is that the consumer must be notified if their personal identifying information is to be sent outside of the U.S. to 3^rd Parties. This would include any type of International Search such as Employment Verifications, Education Verifications or any other instance in which their information may be seen outside of the confines of the Consumer Reporting Agency. Under this new law, the Consumer Reporting Agency, will be held liable for security incidents involving these circumstances.

Employers Investigative Services is dedicated to remaining compliant on both a state and federal level. E.I.S. has been compliant with most aspects of this bill, long before it was passed into law. Other aspects, such as the notification of 3^rd party use, have been implemented since then.

It is important to always utilize a pre-employment screening firm that stays up to date with current “Best Practices” and compliance.

If you have any questions about this or any other aspect of background checks or drug testing, you can always call our staff at 866.350.5638 or email us at info@employersis.com.

An Indiana provider of nursing home employees has been issued $376,000 in penalties for employing individuals who either had their licenses taken away or that have been convicted of crimes.

Officials say it is one of the largest fines and is only made worse by the fact that the violator, American Senior Companies, did not report the violations. ASC operates nursing homes owned by a public agency in Marion County.

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) became aware of 7 employees that were ineligible to work in cases where Medicaid payments were involved in any way, after being told of the issues by the Indiana Medicaid Fraud Control Unit in 2009.

Indiana's Attorney General, Greg Zoeller, commented that it was the largest settlement that the office has ever received in a Medicaid Excluded-Provider Case.

American Senior Companies "Knew or should have known" that the employees were not allowed to take part in federal health care programs, according to Steve Soloman, of The Office to The Counsel of Inspector General. According to Soloman, a majority of the employees mentioned either lost their licenses to practice or had them revoked.

In most cases, violations are "self-reported" by providers according to Soloman. It is the providers responsibility to regularly check lists of contractors and workers who are excluded from participation in these programs.

Simple pre employment background checks and screening would have helped prevent such a large penalty and possibly would have kept ASC in compliance.

It’s important to note that Employers Investigative Services provides the exact searches that will help keep providers compliant including OIG & GSA searches, as well as Excluded Parties Lists and FACIS and Terror Watch List searches.

To learn more about how to better insulate your organization from negligent hiring actions, please visit eischecks.com or call an Investigator and Account Specialist at 866.350.5638.

Please note that The Santa Cruz County Courts will not be providing any search access to records from  Dec. 27th until the 31st. They will be closed on Dec. 24th and 31st and only open a half day on Dec 23rd. Please expect delays.

Due to substantially increased lab fees, E.I.S. is forced to institute a cancellation/incompletion fee. We have been able to absorb all of the fee increases from the labs up until this point but can no longer due so.

Effective Jan 1, 2011, all paperless drug test registrations that are cancelled due to the donor/applicant not appearing before their expiration date, will be charged a $5.00 account modification fee. Please note that you WILL NOT be charged the full amount for the drug test.

You may request that we re-open the search and assign a new expiration date or registration number at any time but please note that you will be charged that $5.00 fee if the expiration date has already passed.

Once again, you will only be charged the Drug Testing Fee if your applicant/donor actually completes the test. If not, you will only be charged the $5.00 fee. Please note that you may notify us with any changes you need to make to registrations prior to the expiration date, WITHOUT INCURRING FEES.

This is for all clients who utilize the drug paperless drug testing system. If you still utilize the paper Chain of Custody Forms, please disregard this notice.

Employers Investigative Services wishes to thank our clients for their business. We are one of the premier nationwide screening firms in the nation, only because our clients demand perfection. We strive to meet their needs. If you have any questions about this new policy, please contact your Customer Service Representative or contact Dusty Lefdal via email (dlefdal@eischecks.com) or via the Toll Free Support Line, 866-350-5638.

Thank you.

Please note that Government Agencies will be closed on Thursday, November 25th and Friday, November 26th in observance of Thanksgiving. Please expect delays due to these closures.

E.I.S. operations will be closed during these dates as well. Staff will be available via the Customer Support Line for emergencies; if they arise.

We would like to thank all of our clients for their support and wish them a Happy Thanksgiving!

MA changes The Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) System when accessing criminal history.

Starting November 4, 2010, MA will change The Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) System that is used to access criminal history information. The information available will be limited. Also, additional requirements will be imposed on requestors and employers.

Employers will not be able to request criminal history on any "initial written employment application." Employers who are barred by federal or state law from hiring individuals convicted of certain crimes, or from filling positions for which convictions constitute a disqualification, are EXEMPT from this law.

Starting on May 4, 2012, felony convictions older than 10 years, and misdemeanor convictions older than 5 years, will be sealed and unavailable to employers. Murder, manslaughter, and sexual offense information will remain available permanently. Certain employers, such as schools and nursing homes, will have access to even more information.

Employers are still allowed to question applicants about their criminal history during an interview. If the employer has  the background report on hand, they must provide the applicant with a copy before any questioning. If a copy of the report has not been given to the applicant, the employer must make sure that the applicant is given a copy when any adverse hiring decisions are made.

Employers who do more than 5 background checks a year have to maintain a written criminal offender record information policy. Employers may only give criminal history information at the employee's or applicant's request; or can give it to other individuals within the business if those individuals meet a "need to know" policy. Employers must also maintain "secondary dissemination logs" stating who the information has been given to, for a period of one year after the fact.

Employer’s Investigative Services will no longer seek permission from Requestors on all NYOCA Searches. All clients are advised that NYOCA Searches have a $65 court fee per name. If you wish to have your account changed to reflect special permissions requests; please contact your Customer Service Representative.