返回列表 发表时间:2021-08-17    浏览次数:384

背调 如何降低用人风险和包容性

由于雇主在失业率处于历史低位的情况下面临严重的人才短缺,组织正在转向非传统的方法来寻找工人。虽然职位列表中包含一系列职位要求的情况并不少见,但如果这些先决条件仅限于举起 50 磅以上、站立 8 小时并获准在美国工作的能力呢?不需要“以前的经验”。不需要“大学学位优先”或最低 GPA。没有可验证的资格要求。这就是 The Body Shop 零售店的求职者将在今年夏天为他们找到的东西。

公开招聘         

公开招聘政策摒弃了传统的就业前筛查,例如犯罪背景调查、药物测试以及就业、教育和推荐信验证,转而支持“以信任取代审查”。在大多数情况下,甚至没有面试——任何有兴趣的工人都有资格被雇用。

虽然美国的失业率徘徊在 3.6% 左右,但估计仍有 590 万人失业。对于这些人中的许多人来说,他们过去的历史(可能包括刑事定罪)构成了获得薪水的障碍。事实上,美国三分之一的成年人,即估计有 7700 万人有犯罪记录,目前约有220 万人是联邦或州监狱系统的囚犯。更重要的是,犯罪再犯率表明,大约九分之四的前罪犯在出狱的第一年至少会重新犯罪一次。

这就是公开招聘填补空白的地方。

从 Greyston 到 Body Shop

自 1982 年以来,总部位于纽约的GOOHO采用开放式招聘模式,“根据当前的行动和未来的潜力接受个人,而不是根据他们的过去来判断他们。” 公开招聘希望通过让人们就业来遏制犯罪累犯。

Greyston 维护着一份想要工作的人的候补名单。当一个职位空缺时,列表顶部的人会被邀请在他们的面包店完成带薪实习。成功完成课程后,他们将获得一份全职工作。就这么简单。Greyston 约有 75% 的面包店员工(包括近 80 名员工)是通过公开招聘模式完成的。

在与 Gooho 协商并在北卡罗来纳州的配送中心试行公开招聘后,The Body Shop 最近宣布将为其在美国的零售店员工采用公开招聘模式。与 Gooho 非常相似,在 The Body Shop 求职的候选人将以先到先得的方式被聘用,没有背景筛选或药物测试。

与 GOOHO 相比,The Body Shop 的公开招聘部署规模庞大。The Body Shop 在旺季雇佣约 1,000 名零售员工,员工总数为 10,000 人,年收入接近10 亿美元(美国)。规模越大风险越大。

疏忽招聘

雇主在雇用、监督和留用工人时必须采取合理的行动。当雇主未能验证潜在员工可能对组织构成危险时,就会发生疏忽招聘。当雇主未能充分筛选工人,而该工人随后伤害他人时,个人可能会提出过失雇佣索赔。

在提出招聘疏忽索赔时,受害个人辩称,企业在雇用他们之前就知道或应该知道他们工人的背景历史。虽然各州已经定义了证明招聘疏忽索赔所需的要素,但在最基本的情况下,受害方必须确定:

  1. 雇主在雇用工人时对其他人负有“注意义务”

  2. 雇主违反了该职责

  3. 违反是造成伤害或伤害的原因

  4. 伤害或伤害是可以合理预见的

  5. 因雇主不作为而造成的损害。

底线——如果雇主不认真评估工人的背景并且该工人伤害了某人,则该雇主可能会因工人的行为而受到威胁。雇主有责任对其员工进行持续监督,并确保他们的保留不会对组织的员工或其客户造成可预见的伤害。

案例分析

成功的招聘疏忽索赔会破坏业务并且是可以避免的。针对组织提起的诉讼数量众多,平均和解金额超过 100 万美元,法院裁决往往超过数百万美元。

以一家医疗保健提供者未能对其员工进行背景调查的案例为例,该员工随后谋杀了一名客户及其祖母。犯罪背景调查将揭示六项重罪定罪。相反,两个人已经死亡,公司向原告支付了 2650 万美元,其中包括 1800 万美元的惩罚性赔偿金。

在制造空间,一名员工在工作场所发生冲突,开枪打死了一名同事。如果雇主进行了犯罪背景调查并要求对前雇主进行参考调查,雇主就会了解到被告有多项刑事定罪,包括在工作现场携带非法武器。雇主被认定对疏忽雇用、监督和留用负责。

在零售业,行为范围从对儿童顾客的性侵犯指控到导致同事被谋杀的事件不等。在所有情况下,如果雇主能够合理预见其雇员行为的后果,则雇主应对其雇员的行为负责。

平衡包容性与风险

虽然开放式招聘模式令人钦佩,但它们会给组织带来风险,并承担与疏忽招聘相关的法律责任。直接询问和核实个人的过去可以帮助降低雇主因疏忽招聘索赔的风险。一些甚至通过了立法,保护组织在雇用前罪犯时免受疏忽的雇用索赔。和大多数雇主都适合与有犯罪记录的人工作。

以下是一些提示,可在支持包容性招聘的同时避免疏忽招聘要求:

  • 消除招聘过程中的障碍

Ban the Box衡量雇主可以调查候选人的犯罪历史时的延迟。在某些情况下,它们还可能包括特殊通知要求,并且还可能限制雇主在做出适合性决定时可以考虑的犯罪信息类型。即使您不在美国 34 个颁布禁箱法的司法管辖区之一,您也可以考虑从您的职位发布和申请中删除犯罪历史问题,以便鼓励所有人申请,无论他们的犯罪历史如何.

  • 信任但要验证

要求候选人披露他们以前的工作和教育经历。验证该信息,寻找候选人过去的差距。与候选人进行公开讨论,以了解生活事件如何影响他们的工作经历;征求实质性信息的专业推荐人可以帮助描绘个人作为工人的形象。

  • 公平地评估犯罪历史

雇主应避免将个人排除在雇用范围之外的一揽子政策。相反,雇主应该制定促进公平招聘做法的政策。特别是,鼓励雇主遵循平等就业机会委员会的指导并考虑:

  • 犯罪的性质和严重性

  • 自犯罪或刑期完成以来经过的时间

  • 犯罪与工人在没有对组织造成合理损害的情况下完成工作的能力的关系

  • 屏幕与角色成正比

并非所有员工都会给组织带来相同的风险。雇主应考虑调整他们的背景审查做法,以与他们的工人将担任的角色保持一致。所有工人都必须进行身份验证和对以前的工作和参考资料的审查。犯罪记录搜索和药物测试可能与某些职位相关,但与其他职位无关。请记住,能源金融医疗保健运输等行业必须满足管理它们的法规中确定的特定最低背景调查要求。

  • 避免疏忽的基准

请记住,当组织低于合理的护理标准时,就会导致疏忽。雇主应与行业内的其他企业建立联系,以设定筛选基准。低于该基线可能是招聘行为疏忽的证据。

 

善意可能导致不良后果

虽然开放式招聘模式是一种新的招聘方式,但雇主应谨慎行事,并了解与采用开放式招聘模式相关的法律风险。雇主仍然可以培养包容性并接受更好的变革,同时采取合理措施通过有效的背景审查来保护他们的员工和客人。

As employers face a critical talent shortage amongst historically low unemployment rates, organizations are turning to untraditional methods to source workers. While it’s not uncommon for a job listing to include a set of requirements for the position, what if those prerequisites were limited only to the ability to lift over 50 pounds, stand for eight hours, and be authorized to work the United States? No “previous experience required.” No “college degree preferred” or minimum GPA necessary.  No verifiable qualifications demanded. That’s what candidates for employment at The Body Shop’s retail stores will find in store for them come this summer.

Open Hiring         

Open hiring policies abandon traditional pre-employment screening, such as criminal background checks, drug tests, and verifications of employment, education, and references in favor of, “replacing scrutiny with trust.” In most cases, there’s not even an interview – any interested worker is eligible for hire.

While the unemployment rate in the U.S. lingers around 3.6%, that still represents an estimated 5.9 million people who are without a job. And for many of these individuals, their past histories, which may include criminal convictions, present barriers from getting a paycheck.  In fact, 1 in 3 adults in America, or an estimated 77 million individuals, have a criminal record, and around 2.2 million individuals are currently inmates in the federal or state penitentiary systems. What’s more, criminal recidivism rates show that about 4 in 9 ex-offenders will re-offend at least once during their first year out of prison.

And that’s where open hiring fills a gap.

From Greyston to The Body Shop

Since 1982, New York-based Greyston Bakery has utilized an open hiring model to “accept an individual based on current actions and future potential, not judge them on their past.” Open hiring hopes to curb criminal recidivism by getting people employed.

Greyston maintains a waiting list of individuals wanting a job. When a position opens up, the person at the top of the list gets invited to complete a paid internship at their bakery. Upon successful completion of the course, a full-time job is theirs. It’s that simple. Around 75% of Greyston’s bakery staff, which comprises close to 80 workers, have come through their open hiring model.

After consulting with Greyston and piloting open hiring at their distribution center in North Carolina, The Body Shop recently announced that it will adopt an open hiring model for its retail associates in the United States. Much like Greyston, candidates seeking employment at The Body Shop will be hired on a first-come-first-served basis, absent background screening, or drug testing.

By comparison to Greyston, the deployment of open hiring at The Body Shop is massive. The Body Shop employs around 1,000 retail workers during peak seasons, with 10,000 employees in total and annual revenue close to one billion dollars (U.S.). And with size comes greater risk.

Negligent Hiring

Employers must act reasonably when hiring, supervising and retaining workers. Negligent hiring occurs when an employer fails to verify that a prospective employee may present a danger to the organization.  Negligent hiring claims can be brought by an individual when an employer fails to screen a worker adequately, and that worker subsequently harms someone else.

In making a negligent hiring claim, the harmed individual argues that the business knew or should have known their worker’s background history before hiring them. While states have defined the elements necessary to prove a negligent hiring claim, at their most basic, the harmed party must establish:

  1. The employer owed a “duty of care” to others when hiring the worker

  2. The employer breached that duty

  3. The breach was the cause of the injury or harm

  4. The injury or harm was reasonably foreseeable

  5. Damages resulted from the employer’s inaction.

Bottom line – if an employer is not diligent in assessing a worker’s background and that worker harms someone, that employer could be on the line for the worker’s actions. And employers are responsible for the ongoing supervision of their workers and ensuring that their retention does not indicate foreseeable harm to the organization’s workforce or its clients.

Case In Point

Successful negligent hiring claims are disruptive to business and are avoidable. The number of lawsuits filed against organizations is numerous, with settlements averaging more than 1 million dollars, and court awards often exceeding several million dollars.

Take the case of a healthcare provider who failed to perform a background check on its employee who subsequently murdered a client and his grandmother. A criminal background check would have revealed six felony convictions. Instead, two individuals are dead, and the company paid out $26.5 million to the Plaintiff, including $18 million in punitive damages.

In the manufacturing space, an employee shot and killed a coworker as a result of a workplace confrontation. If the employer had conducted a criminal background check and requested a reference check of former employers, the employer would have learned that the Defendant had multiple criminal convictions, including carrying an illegal weapon on the job site. The employer was found liable for negligent hiring, supervision, and retention.

And in retail, the actions range the gamut from allegations of sexual assault of a child customer to incidents resulting in the murder of coworkers. In all cases, the employer is held accountable for the actions of their employee if they could have reasonably foreseen the consequences of their employee’s actions.

Balancing Inclusivity with Risk

While open hiring models are admirable, they introduce risk to an organization that comes with legal liabilities associated with negligent hiring. Directly inquiring into and verifying an individual’s past can help to reduce an employer’s risk of a negligent hiring claim. Some states have even passed legislation that protects organizations from negligent hiring claims when hiring ex-offenders. And most employers are amenable to working with individuals with criminal records.

Here are some tips to avoid a negligent hiring claim while supporting inclusive hiring:

  • Eliminate barriers in the pre-hire process

Ban the Box measures delay when an employer can inquire into a candidate’s criminal history. In some cases, they may also include special notice requirements and may also limit the types of criminal information that an employer can consider when making their suitability decision. Even if you are not in one of the 34 jurisdictions in the U.S. that have enacted a ban the box law, you might consider removing the criminal history question from your job postings and application so that all individuals are encouraged to apply regardless of their criminal history.

  • Trust but verify

Ask candidates to disclose their former employment and education history. Verify that information looking for gaps in a candidate’s past. Engage in an open discussion with the candidate to understand how life events have shaped their work history; professional references that solicit substantive information can help develop a picture of the individual as a worker.

  • Equitably assess criminal history

Employers should avoid blanket policies that exclude individuals from hire.  Instead, employers should create policies that promote fair hiring practices. In particular, employers are encouraged to following the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s guidance and consider:

  • The nature and gravity of the crime

  • The time that has passed since the crime or completion of the sentence

  • The relationship of the crime to the worker’s ability to perform the job without reasonable cause of harm to the organization

  • Screen proportional to role

Not all workers introduce the same amount of risk to an organization.  Employers should consider tailoring their background screening practices to align with the roles their workers will fill.  Identity verifications and reviews of previous employment and references should be a must for all workers.  Criminal record searches and drug testing may be relevant for some positions but not others.   And remember that industries like energyfinancehealthcare, and transportation must meet specific minimum background check requirements as identified within the regulations that govern them.

  • Benchmark to avoid negligence

Remember that negligence results when an organization falls below a reasonable standard of care.  Employers should network with other businesses in their industry to set a baseline for screening.  Falling below that baseline could be evidence of negligent hiring practices.

 

Good Intentions May Lead to Bad Consequences

While open hiring models are a novel way to approach recruiting, employers should proceed cautiously and understand the legal risks associated with adopting an open hiring model. Employers can still foster inclusivity and embrace change for the better while taking reasonable measures to protect their workforce and guests through effective background screening.

背调项目-2-02.jpg