Read full article here: Avoiding the Pitfalls of Background Checks

Hiring of new employees still remains an imperfect and uncertain process, even with numerous rounds of interviews, use of personality tests, professional reference checks, and scouring of social media. A new hire who turns out to not be the “best fit” for your organization can result in lost time, productivity, and training costs, but these can be the least of a company’s worries. Most jurisdictions recognize causes of action against employers for negligent hiring and retention of employees. In contrast to the theory of respondeat superior, under which an employer is held liable for the actions of his employee, negligent hiring and retention torts are based on a separate duty imposed upon the employer in the hiring and supervision of its employees. Recent verdicts and settlements indicate that the potential exposure for such torts can be in the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. Employers are particularly susceptible to tortious liability when they hire an individual with a criminal history without inquiring about his or her criminal background or simply ignoring that background.

In order to avoid such exposure, most companies have instituted criminal background checks as a normal course of their employment process and some have even asserted blanket prohibitions on hiring anyone with even a criminal arrest, regardless of whether he or she was convicted. While these may seem like easy fixes recent legislation and litigation regarding these practices demonstrate the need for a more nuanced approach. This article takes a look at the wisdom of solely relying on criminal background checks and addresses both the exposure businesses face from negligent hiring liability and the various pitfalls a company can succumb to by taking too simplistic an approach to avoid such liability.