Comments on: New hire attacks employee: Was it HR’s fault?

By: mike r

mike r — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:32:42 +0000

To Keith Hamm:

I am in FULL agreement. In the words of some great person….What HE said.

By: Keith Hamm, SPHR

Keith Hamm, SPHR — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:08:49 +0000

We document the reason(s) for any employee leaving our organization. If asked, I provide responses based on that documentation only. All employment references go through me. I personally review each exit evaluation for any hint of bias or other danger signals. Facts are a great defense. Most of this goes back to the documentation. We train our supervisors and management very well in how to document actions and behaviors. This works in our favor as well as the employees’. A good employee exiting can count on a good reference and we can back that up with specifics as well. Getting supervisors to document (and do it correctly) is a hard habit to start, but well worth the effort.

By: mike r

mike r — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 22:29:00 +0000

I think there are more protections for employers providing information than we usually think.

I believe that it is prudent to provide only “factual” information that is relevant to the position they are applying for. Normally I provide the basics; name rank and serial number. If I am provided inforamtion about what job the employee is applying, then I can provide more relevant information. If I am asked for specific information about performance, I may provide my evaluation of the employee’s performance (judgment), but will back it up with factual behavioral evidence.

For example, we provide residential care in some of our programs. If I have an employee who blurred their professional boundaries and fraternized with a client and they were applying for a cashier’s position at a restaurant, then the fraternization issue is not an issue and would not be shared in the reference. However, if they were going to work in a nursing home or to do home health care, I would make sure that it is included in the reference.

By: Dan

Dan — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 20:39:13 +0000

This unveils a dilemma for many: You don’t want to give out too much reference info for fear of being held liable for defamation while at the same time you’re trying to glean as much info as possible (from other employers) about potential new-hires to avoid negligent hiring/retention actions. To wit, Karin’s “Catch-22″ analogy rings quite true….God Bless America!

By: Judy Buckley

Judy Buckley — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:32:28 +0000

Karin is probably right that the new employee could sue, but I believe I’ve heard the person attacked also could sue the previous employer for not disclosing that information – if she found out about it. It puts both the old and new employers in a difficult position – if the info were revealed, the new employer could either not hire the person or let him know he was being watched. All this because that person couldn’t or wouldn’t behave appropriately.

By: mike r

mike r — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:28:52 +0000

I wonder if the previous employer who characterized the employee’s firing as a “dispute with a co-worker” could be sued.

As I recall there were several cases a few years ago where the previous employer FAILED to provide relevant information during a reference check and was held accountable in court.

As I recall, one case involved an employee who was fired for bringing a gun to work. He was fired and when he applied to work at another company his reference check came back clean.
Unfortunately, he shot his co-workers at his new job. The survivors sued the company and it was found that the previous company did not provide the needed information. Then the previous company was sued and lost the case.

By: Karin

Karin — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 15:44:44 +0000

Isn’t that a catch 22 in regards to the former employer verifying employment, etc?

Couldn’t the new hire sue for defimation of character if he didn’t get the position? Getting the truth from a former employer about work history isn’t as easy as it once was.