6 ms·

In the case of failed background checks, the solution is actually quite simple - tell the candidate it's an offer contingent upon the background check. But you

In the case of failed background checks, the solution is actually quite simple - tell the candidate it's an offer contingent upon the background check. But you're right - rescinding job offers is an absolutely vile business practice. Imagine resigning from your job after accepting an offer from Stripe, and then they just change their minds. Gross.

TAForObvReasons 5y ago
Not a lawyer, but promissory estoppel may apply
- justusw 5y ago
  In Japan, a written job offer is almost as good as a job contract, so if the company decides to rescind it, you’ve got legal grounds to sue them. I assumed that something similar should exist in the US and I am relieved to hear that might actually be the case.
  - judge2020 5y ago
    Not really - the U.S. (except Montana) makes work at-will, where either side can terminate the work immediately without cause (although it can't be for reasons discriminatory of a protected class like race, religion, etc). You might be able to get damages for misrepresentation at most, but you'd have to show they never intended to hire you in the first place, or perhaps on the basis they allegedly didn't clarify that the offer is contingent on a background check.
  - discopicante 5y ago
    It's really not the case. Job contracts in the United States are rare unless you are approaching or in the C-suite. Employment law is typically enforced at the state level; all states practice some form of 'at-will' employment meaning an employer can dismiss an employee for any reason as long as it's not illegal (e.g. discrimination). States like California and New York might require a bit more paperwork but it's nothing like employee protections and job contracts elsewhere in the world.
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      > Job contracts in the United States are rare Most people don't sign a contract between employer and employee in the US? So you don't even have any kind of confidentially agreement?
      - judge2020 5y ago
        Office jobs often do have an NDA, but otherwise a lot of trades and hourly positions don't opt for one. The retaliation for leaking sensitive info is either suing for leaking trade secrets (which is rare), or just firing them on the spot.
      - bkberry352 5y ago
        Confidentiality agreements are relatively common, but outside of that there is no written contract. Generally speaking, US jobs fall under a legal category here called "at-will" employment, which makes it easy for either party to end the relationship at any time. Personally, I've worked a variety of jobs and never signed a written contract for any of them. In a few, I've not received a formal offer letter.
    - Nitrolo 5y ago
      Never worked in the states so I'm not sure if things are different there, and I guess I'm misunderstanding something here, but are you saying that there are no contracts between most employers and employees? There must be something that both are signing right? With pay rate, hours and benefits written down.
      - judge2020 5y ago
        In general, you can work entirely without exchanging anything more than words and giving the employer a W-9.
      - alistairSH 5y ago
        No, job contracts are pretty rare. At-will employment, where both parties can end employment on zero notice with zero reason (legal discrimination aside), is the norm in the US. Some states (CA being the usual example) have more employee protections, but AFAIK do not require contracts. Typically, for a white-collar job, you'd interview and receive a job offer contingent on background check and verifying previous employment. That offer would have a salary and start date and that's about it. HR might hand you a benefits package at the same time. Sometime on or before the first day of employment, you'd be asked to sign NDAs, confirm legal eligibly to work, and similar paperwork, but almost never a contract. Senior leaders often have contracts because their terms are more complicated - golden parachutes, etc.
  - thomascgalvin 5y ago
    There are very few worker protections in the US. We're mostly a "right to work" nation, which is doublespeak for "workers have few, if any, rights."
- tfehring 5y ago
  Also not a lawyer but my understanding is that the damages you can collect even if you win a judgment are only a fraction of the damages a layperson would identify, e.g., you generally wouldn't get anything for quitting your previous job or ending your lease (though you might get closing costs if you sell a house).
zrail 5y ago
Every offer letter I've ever received has language to the effect that it's contingent on a number of things, including a background check.
- ghostly_s 5y ago
  I've never received such a thing.
  - justin66 5y ago
    The employer would only need that verbiage in an offer letter if they had failed to perform all reference, credit, criminal, etc. checks prior to sending you the letter.
    - _moof 5y ago
      Companies don't "fail" to perform background checks prior to making offers. In some jurisdictions (e.g. California), it's illegal to perform a background check prior to making an offer. https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/fair-chance-act/ https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/fair-chance-act/ https://www.nelp.org/campaign/ensuring-fair-chance-to-work/ https://www.nelp.org/campaign/ensuring-fair-chance-to-work/
      - justin66 5y ago
        This is interesting! My involvement in background screening began and ended before this law was enacted. The CA law is probably good at preventing outright, unfair elimination of candidates because of criminal history. I think one key thing in that California law is the notion of the “conditional job offer.” This law doesn’t effect the dynamics of the offer letters we were discussing at all. If you make an offer and there are still conditions pending, you’re obligated to let the candidate know. I cannot imagine CA is doing that differently. I get your point, though, that doing the criminal portion of the background check after extending the offer is now not just normal, but mandatory, in CA.
        deleted 5y ago

TAForObvReasons 5y ago

Not a lawyer, but promissory estoppel may apply

justusw 5y ago
In Japan, a written job offer is almost as good as a job contract, so if the company decides to rescind it, you’ve got legal grounds to sue them. I assumed that something similar should exist in the US and I am relieved to hear that might actually be the case.
- judge2020 5y ago
  Not really - the U.S. (except Montana) makes work at-will, where either side can terminate the work immediately without cause (although it can't be for reasons discriminatory of a protected class like race, religion, etc). You might be able to get damages for misrepresentation at most, but you'd have to show they never intended to hire you in the first place, or perhaps on the basis they allegedly didn't clarify that the offer is contingent on a background check.
- discopicante 5y ago
  It's really not the case. Job contracts in the United States are rare unless you are approaching or in the C-suite. Employment law is typically enforced at the state level; all states practice some form of 'at-will' employment meaning an employer can dismiss an employee for any reason as long as it's not illegal (e.g. discrimination). States like California and New York might require a bit more paperwork but it's nothing like employee protections and job contracts elsewhere in the world.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    > Job contracts in the United States are rare Most people don't sign a contract between employer and employee in the US? So you don't even have any kind of confidentially agreement?
    - judge2020 5y ago
      Office jobs often do have an NDA, but otherwise a lot of trades and hourly positions don't opt for one. The retaliation for leaking sensitive info is either suing for leaking trade secrets (which is rare), or just firing them on the spot.
    - bkberry352 5y ago
      Confidentiality agreements are relatively common, but outside of that there is no written contract. Generally speaking, US jobs fall under a legal category here called "at-will" employment, which makes it easy for either party to end the relationship at any time. Personally, I've worked a variety of jobs and never signed a written contract for any of them. In a few, I've not received a formal offer letter.
  - Nitrolo 5y ago
    Never worked in the states so I'm not sure if things are different there, and I guess I'm misunderstanding something here, but are you saying that there are no contracts between most employers and employees? There must be something that both are signing right? With pay rate, hours and benefits written down.
    - judge2020 5y ago
      In general, you can work entirely without exchanging anything more than words and giving the employer a W-9.
    - alistairSH 5y ago
      No, job contracts are pretty rare. At-will employment, where both parties can end employment on zero notice with zero reason (legal discrimination aside), is the norm in the US. Some states (CA being the usual example) have more employee protections, but AFAIK do not require contracts. Typically, for a white-collar job, you'd interview and receive a job offer contingent on background check and verifying previous employment. That offer would have a salary and start date and that's about it. HR might hand you a benefits package at the same time. Sometime on or before the first day of employment, you'd be asked to sign NDAs, confirm legal eligibly to work, and similar paperwork, but almost never a contract. Senior leaders often have contracts because their terms are more complicated - golden parachutes, etc.
- thomascgalvin 5y ago
  There are very few worker protections in the US. We're mostly a "right to work" nation, which is doublespeak for "workers have few, if any, rights."
tfehring 5y ago
Also not a lawyer but my understanding is that the damages you can collect even if you win a judgment are only a fraction of the damages a layperson would identify, e.g., you generally wouldn't get anything for quitting your previous job or ending your lease (though you might get closing costs if you sell a house).

zrail 5y ago

Every offer letter I've ever received has language to the effect that it's contingent on a number of things, including a background check.

ghostly_s 5y ago
I've never received such a thing.
- justin66 5y ago
  The employer would only need that verbiage in an offer letter if they had failed to perform all reference, credit, criminal, etc. checks prior to sending you the letter.
  - _moof 5y ago
    Companies don't "fail" to perform background checks prior to making offers. In some jurisdictions (e.g. California), it's illegal to perform a background check prior to making an offer. https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/fair-chance-act/ https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/fair-chance-act/ https://www.nelp.org/campaign/ensuring-fair-chance-to-work/ https://www.nelp.org/campaign/ensuring-fair-chance-to-work/
    - justin66 5y ago
      This is interesting! My involvement in background screening began and ended before this law was enacted. The CA law is probably good at preventing outright, unfair elimination of candidates because of criminal history. I think one key thing in that California law is the notion of the “conditional job offer.” This law doesn’t effect the dynamics of the offer letters we were discussing at all. If you make an offer and there are still conditions pending, you’re obligated to let the candidate know. I cannot imagine CA is doing that differently. I get your point, though, that doing the criminal portion of the background check after extending the offer is now not just normal, but mandatory, in CA.
      - deleted 5y ago