Forums
Can candidates omit crime that's more than 7 years old?
Recruiting & Staffing
Can candidates omit crime that's more than 7 years old?
Exchange ideas about sourcing, screening, interviewing, finding passive candidates, measuring your results, and more.
Hi,
I am drafting the employment application for my company. Can the candidates omit a criminal offense (misdemeanor or felony) that is more than 7 years old? I have seen companies doing both ways.
1
Cat:Topic ForumsForum:ForumId56
Cat:Topic ForumsForum:ForumId56Discussion:DiscussionId31815
Forums » Topic Forums » Recruiting & Staffing » Can candidates omit crime that's more than 7 years old?
Forums
»
Topic Forums
»
Recruiting & Staffing
»
Can candidates omit crime that's more than 7 years old?
|
Can candidates omit crime that's more than 7 years old?
posted at 9/14/2006 12:20 PM EDT
|
Posts: 410
First: 1/26/2006 Last: 11/15/2010 |
Hi:
I'm not inclined to engage in a vitriolic conversation in a professional forum or otherwise. If you have an employment attorney or professional that understands privacy law review the Soroka v. Dayton Hudson case or multitude of related cases, they will advise you that it is the questions that are problematic---not the vehicle (e.g., assessments, interviews). Also, try going to state administrative agency websites, which will have documents like the one I referenced from the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and ascertain what is illegal to ask. I trust this is helpful. I think other discussants have heard an adequate discussion of this issue. Thank you. Dave Arnold, Ph.D. J.D. |
|
|
Can candidates omit crime that's more than 7 years old?
posted at 9/14/2006 12:29 PM EDT
|
|
Posts: 120
First: 8/23/2006 Last: 9/29/2006 |
it still only goes to religion and sexual orientation. I can only conceive of one that could potentially be a BFOQ.
You haven't proven anything yet. A single case loosely related in a single jurisdiction. You make a blanket statement that suggests only your blanket statement is accurate and anything else remotely considered blanket is inaccurate or ill advised. I'm still waiting for substance. You haven't provided anything. |
|
|
Can candidates omit crime that's more than 7 years old?
posted at 9/14/2006 12:35 PM EDT
|
|
Posts: 120
First: 8/23/2006 Last: 9/29/2006 |
In fact, lets go a step further. Here is a brief from the APA on your point. I draw your attention to the words "depublished' and "uncitable" in the last paragraph. Further, I point out to you that this is a sexual orientation case and a Psychological testing case and NOT a questioning content case as we are discussing. You still present nothing to support your point but appear to be promoting a Phd and a JD as your argument. Won't work without substance.
I trust this insight is helpful. Soroka v. Dayton Hudson Corp., dba Target Stores, [review was granted but case was settled in 7/93 without an APA brief filed]-lower court case: 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 77 (1991). Brief Filed: 1/92 (letter) Court: Supreme Court of California Year of Decision: [settled] Issue: Whether certain portions of the MMPI and the California Psychological Inventory administered to job applicants (i.e., questions that facially and in isolation suggest they are related to religious and sexual matters) violate the privacy provisions of the California Constitution and certain anti-discrimination laws Index Topics: Employment; Tests (Use, Validity & Security of Psychological Tests and Test Data) Facts: Target Stores, in an effort to improve hiring procedures, identified emotional characteristics that are problematic in security guards. On the recommendation of psychological consultants, Target began to administer pre-employment psychological screening tests. The tests were administered with answer sheets which were then placed in sealed envelopes and sent to the consultants for scoring and interpretation. Target received reports on the evaluation from the consultants but did not receive the candidate's responses to specific questions. Plaintiffs, who had applied to Target Stores as security consultants and were denied positions, sued for injunctive relief, to bar the use of particular questions on the Rodgers Condensed CP/MMPI that they claimed violated their privacy rights. Specifically, they asserted that questions that facially referred to religion and sexual orientation violated their rights under the California Constitution and certain anti-discrimination laws. The Superior Court issued an order denying injunctive relief on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to establish that Target had based its hiring decisions on religious beliefs or sexual traits or that the questions were designed to reveal such information. Plaintiffs appealed and the California Court of Appeals reversed the order denying relief. The Court struck down the individual questions as violating privacy rights focusing on the test questions themselves and disregarding the lower court's factual findings that Target never received the test answer sheets and that the answers had no meaning except in their cumulative power to identify certain emotional traits. The Court held that questions that violate privacy must be directly and narrowly related to the nature of the employee's duties. Target filed a petition for review. APA's Position: APA filed a letter of interest with the California Supreme Court. It noted that: (1) the tests are widely used for security-related job testing and that there is a large body of scientific literature supporting their use; (2) the court's ruling could be applied to clinical interviews in the employment context, barring questions that "touch" on privacy issues; and (3) since individual items are constructed because they are scientifically correlated with the trait at issue in conjunction with the other test items, the holding of the court that requires individual items implicating privacy issues to be directly and narrowly tailored to employment duties would make it difficult, if not impossible, for such test questions to pass muster. An APA brief was never filed due to the settlement of the parties. Results: Review was granted by the California Supreme Court but was then dismissed as moot upon settlement of the parties. Once review had been granted, the Court of Appeals decision was automatically "depublished" and rendered uncitable. However, Soroka has been codified by § 1102.1 of the California Labor Code (1992) which was designed to transform the court decision prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation into law (effective 1/1/93). |
Forums » Topic Forums » Recruiting & Staffing » Can candidates omit crime that's more than 7 years old?
