August/September 2006 Pre-employment Screening News

• Dawson College Killer Eluded Gun-Law Screening (9/15/06) - Canadian Press


• Murder Case Points to Background Check Flaws


• Polygraph Examiner Was Not "Employee" Subject To Employee Polygraph Protection Act


• Offender's Arrest Prompts Concern Over Background Checks


• Screening for Security


• Jury Could Conclude That Company Was Negligent In Hiring Deliverymen Who Stole Property From Customer

Dawson College Killer Eluded Gun-Law Screening (9/15/06) - Canadian Press

Canada has some of the most stringent requirements in the industrialized world for its citizens to possess guns, especially restricted firearms such as handguns.

But Kimveer Gill, who bragged on the Internet about his fascination with guns and death, managed to pass the system's screening process.

Gill legally acquired a pistol and restricted semi-automatic carbine, which to witnesses looked like an assault rifle, and took them on a shooting rampage at Montreal's Dawson College, killing one young woman and wounding about 20 other people.

Read the article.

Back to top

---

Murder Case Points to Background Check Flaws (9/8/06) - Charlotte Observer

When Kenyadda Patterson moved to the Summerfield apartments with her two children, she didn't know that the man working as a home health aide less than 20 feet across the breezeway was an admitted murderer.

The problem was that neither did his employer.

Now Patterson is dead. The 31-year-old woman's naked body was found a year ago, behind a church in southwest Mecklenburg County.

And home health worker Derrick Leon Harris, 44, is in jail awaiting trial on counts of murder and first-degree sexual offense in a case that eerily echoes the slaying that sent him to prison years ago.

Read the article

Back to top

---

Polygraph Examiner Was Not "Employee" Subject To Employee Polygraph Protection Act (8/29/06) - 10th Cir.

The Employee Polygraph Protection Act ("EPPA") restricts the conduct of, and provides remedies against, an "employer" regarding the use of lie detector tests. The statute defines "employer" as "any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee or prospective employee." Under applicable regulations, a polygraph examiner generally is not considered an "employer." See 29 C.F.R. § 801.2(c) ("A polygraph examiner either employed for or whose services are retained for the sole purpose of administering polygraph tests ordinarily would not be deemed an employer with respect to the examinees.").

While "ordinarily," does not mean "never," in this case, after adopting the "economic reality" test, the 10th Circuit concluded that the defendant polygraph examiner was not an "employee" subject to the EPPA.

Fernandez v. Mora-San Miguel Elec. Co-op., Inc.

Read the case

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals' jurisdiction includes Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming.

Back to top

---

Offender's Arrest Prompts Concern Over Background Checks (8/30/06) - KCCI.com
The arrest of a Des Moines maintenance worker has some people pushing for better use of the Iowa Sex Offender Registry.

Roy Kelvin Harnden, a registered sex offender, was charged with assaulting at least one girl at the apartment complex where he works. A background check on Harnden was not required

That apartment complex is not alone as a number of central Iowa employers don't require sex offender screening.

Read the article

Back to top

---

Screening for Security (8/24/06) - News-Record.com

The tragic killings of two UNC-Wilmington students in 2004 prompted the UNC system to tighten the main point of entry for students: the application process. In an effort to improve security and student safety, applications for admission to its 16 campuses were updated to include a series of questions about students' criminal backgrounds, a necessary and warranted step.

On Jan. 1, N.C. A&T will take a similarly warranted step when it institutes additional screening for prospective students who answer yes to questions that include inquiries about past convictions or pending criminal charges.

Read the article

Back to top

---

Jury Could Conclude That Company Was Negligent In Hiring Deliverymen Who Stole Property From Customer (2/9/06) - D.C. Ct App

In this case, an eighty year old customer brought suit against an appliance store and delivery company, alleging, among other things, that they were negligent in hiring deliverymen who stole money and jewelry from the customer while they installed her washing machine. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that the customer had produced sufficient evidence from which a jury might conclude that the delivery company had indeed failed to exercise reasonable care in hiring the deliverymen.

Schecter v. Merchants Home Delivery, Inc.

Read the case

Back to top