Background Check Saves Nursery Against Being Sued For Negligent Hiring

Earlier this month a woman was charged with several counts of misdemeanor theft in Faribault County, the state of Minnesota. She had committed multiple thefts of money from other employees and residents at a nursing home where she was employed as a nursing assistant.

During the police investigation the administrator of the nursing home was asked whether she had undergone any sort of employment background check, and the nursery’s administrator was able to produce a proof confirming every potential member of the staff at the establishment strictly followed the pre-hiring procedure that included criminal background check against the existing criminal and police records databases. The background check was being performed by a third party people background screening company, which also checked the potential employee’s credentials and certification as required by law.

This is a prominent example of how the employer avoided being sued in court for negligent hiring, while there are many opposite examples you can read about rather often in the news. Considering that nowadays, when the Internet is often referred to as a huge repository of digital dossiers of just about everyone, many employers (especially small and middle-sized businesses) choose to do their own background screening using some freely available databases of public records. By doing so they save money they would otherwise have to pay to a Private Investigator.

But do they really save? Probably they do, until something like the theft I described at the beginning of this story happens. You could use do-it-yourself background check for just a sort of preliminary background screening, but should incident occur, especially involving customers or clients, only a background check that was run by a professional background screening company would make you 100% safe against being sued for negligent hiring.

Which Public Records Bill Would Be For Benefit Of Louisiana Citizens?

17 June, Wednesday, the Senate of the state of Louisiana started hearing amendments to the current Louisiana public records law. Two bills introduced from behalf of the opposition that failed to gather enough votes, could have made the majority of current records held by Governor Jindal’s Administration open for public inspection. Instead the senators voted for a different bill, backed by the governor’s supporters in the Legislature, called SB 278. Even if the governor’s side claims its provisions are intended to increase the extent of transparency of his office decision making, in fact new amendments are on a way to kill open government, should they become a law.

The public records law that is currently in effect in Louisiana restricts public access to great deal of records held by the Governor’s Office. If passed, the new amendments would restrict the public’s right to view the records even further, even if at the first glance they seemingly remove a number of the restrictive provisions. What is important, is that it leaves intact the records within the governor’s office that deal with such matters as governor’s security and schedule, records that contain the information disclosing the content of the service communication of the gubernatorial administration key officers as well as any record that relates to the decision making process. Also it’s not clear which specific kinds of documents and for how much time would be exempt from public scrutiny under the new public record provisions.

What they wish to pass unnoticed is that their bill allows withholding a whole vast number of important records that so far can freely be requested by the general public by adding a 6-month term for keeping sealed the records that disclose contents of recommendations the governor requests and receives while forming budget. Isn’t it an attempt to hide from the taxpayers how their dollars are being spent? At a closer glance you could see that on the stake are the most important records that so far enjoy the status of totally unrestricted public records and that have to do with reports and analytical reviews that could help understand the motives standing behind choosing in the favor of this or that public spending program. You will not know how they evaluated the effectiveness of funding until it is too late to argue their background check.