4 ms·

In this case it may be a good thing. Anyone who reads this account (anyone reasonable at least) will think. "Bright student with an interest in science trying

In this case it may be a good thing. Anyone who reads this account (anyone reasonable at least) will think. "Bright student with an interest in science trying a fun science experiment." Then they'll hire her, or not, based on her qualifications. At least in a perfect world...

yardie 13y ago
In and ideal world this would happen. Most likely they won't even bother with the context, just see there was an arrest made and filed it under rejected.
- mseebach 13y ago
  I think background checks are usually done at the point when you've decided to make an offer, and take the form of "is there something she's not telling us?". At that point, she will have had a chance to disclose the incident in context, so at least the context is considered. According to this article[1], the employer has to "have a legal release form completed by the applicant, inform that person of his/her rights, and provide that applicant with a copy of the report, as well as adverse actions communications". If she's rejected on the back of an incident that's not on her criminal record, but found on Google, she's going to have a pretty good case against the employer. 1: http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikalbelicove/2012/10/26/the-10-dos-and-donts-o-conducting-employee-background-checks/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikalbelicove/2012/10/26/the-10-...
  - rdtsc 13y ago
    In at will employment states this will be close to impossible. Simple loophole -- hire her first, then fire next month due to "urgent restructuring" or "non-performance" good luck with that.
    - mseebach 13y ago
      The original worry was not over that the evidence of her actions might be used against her, it was that they might be used without the context, presumably by an algorithm or a mindless HR drone. If you go through the trouble of hiring someone, you'll have the context. I can't immediately think of a job where it'd reasonable count against her, but it's not inconceivable that a such could exist - and if it did, she'd be wrong to withhold it.

yardie 13y ago

In and ideal world this would happen. Most likely they won't even bother with the context, just see there was an arrest made and filed it under rejected.

mseebach 13y ago
I think background checks are usually done at the point when you've decided to make an offer, and take the form of "is there something she's not telling us?". At that point, she will have had a chance to disclose the incident in context, so at least the context is considered. According to this article[1], the employer has to "have a legal release form completed by the applicant, inform that person of his/her rights, and provide that applicant with a copy of the report, as well as adverse actions communications". If she's rejected on the back of an incident that's not on her criminal record, but found on Google, she's going to have a pretty good case against the employer. 1: http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikalbelicove/2012/10/26/the-10-dos-and-donts-o-conducting-employee-background-checks/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikalbelicove/2012/10/26/the-10-...
- rdtsc 13y ago
  In at will employment states this will be close to impossible. Simple loophole -- hire her first, then fire next month due to "urgent restructuring" or "non-performance" good luck with that.
  - mseebach 13y ago
    The original worry was not over that the evidence of her actions might be used against her, it was that they might be used without the context, presumably by an algorithm or a mindless HR drone. If you go through the trouble of hiring someone, you'll have the context. I can't immediately think of a job where it'd reasonable count against her, but it's not inconceivable that a such could exist - and if it did, she'd be wrong to withhold it.