Adjudication Withheld...HELP

djacobs475

Help ...x:-/

We are a government contractor who is also in the business of providing various local, state, and federal branches of the govt. with surveillance equipment - consequently we do full background checks and all candidates must have clean backgrounds to work here due to confidentiality, security, etc...

An applicant recently came in and answered "no" to our "any felonies" question, but in the interview revealed he had "adjudication withheld" on aggravated battery - but was never convicted of a felony.

Here is my question, if we reject him due this issue, will we have any discriminatory liability?
Is there a "legally sound" reason we can use to turn him down? :-S

How would you handle this situation?

Thanks so much for you wisdom and input, my fellow Forumites!

Don D

You're mighty creative with those emoticons. Surely you can be equally as creative coming up with a defensible reason why he didn't rise to the top of the candidate pool.

Balloonman

I always like the phrase.......found someone who is a better fit for the position...........

My $0.02 worth.
DJ The Balloonman

TN HR

Do a search for "background checks" as we had this discussion in a recent thread. What does your policy say about pending charges? This charge is, in fact, still a pending charge in that adjudication has been deferred or withheld for a certain period of time. Pending good behavior the charges will be dismissed by the judge sometime.

Our policy is very specific about pending charges and was created so for situations such as these.

I'd follow the advice of other posters on a "reason" for not hiring.

Gene

djacobs475

Gene,
Thanks for the advice. I guess we will need to revise our Policy to be very clear about pending charges.

Don D

If you were in California or perhaps Vermont or Masachusetts, I would recommend caution, but I don't think you have a concern even if your team decides to dismiss his candidacy because of what he says he did. If he admitted pending or non-adjudication, then surely he is admitting whatever he was charged with. Non-adjudication is a step or two beyond a 'charge' and won't follow a plea of innocent. In any case, I would more than likely decide on his rejection based on that alone, if it seemed remotely related to my opening. He need not be given a reason for not being hired. Simply send him the standard letter telling him you appreciate his interest in opportunities at your company; however, the position has been filled by another candidate. You do not owe him anything further, nor should you give anything further. If you do decide to state anything else, be careful not to say something like, "We selected a more qualified candidate". He can have the EEOC challenge that till the cows come home.

I reported earlier on another thread that I had a candidate who admitted a non-adjudicated situation. I asked him what for. He said he called in a bomb threat to the employer who had recently laid him off. When I got his address off his resume to send him a 'sorry charlie' letter, I noticed that his email screen name was 'Shotgun'. There's a moral here somewhere.

cthr

If your used a third party service to conduct your background checks and you are using information recieved from them in your decision, you must inform the candidate under the FCRA.

djacobs475

Yes, normally we do use third party service to conduct our background checks, and if anything is revealed during the course of the background check, we do in fact inform a candidate under FCRA. But in this case we didn't even start the background check process because he revealed to me in the interview about his "adjudication withheld".

djacobs475

Don,

I was a little disappointed when I saw your initial response... I was counting (as I always do)on your expert advice. So, thanks for making it very clear about the "sorry charlie letter"; he had already made it crystal clear to me in the interview that if he was rejected for the job based on adjudication withheld, it would be the second time and he would bring a legal suit (he mumbled something about bringing it against the judge who withheld the adjudication, but nevertheless this isn't something I want to wrestle with)...

Thanks again.

hrplanet

...
>he had already made it crystal clear to me in
>the interview that if he was rejected for the
>job based on adjudication withheld, it would be
>the second time and he would bring a legal suit
>(he mumbled something about bringing it against
>the judge who withheld the adjudication...

I have only had to deal with the adjudication issue a couple of times and never adjudication withheld so I have no experience to offer but did he really feel that remark (threat?) would help get him the job!?!? It sounds like it should not be difficult to glean a legit reason not to hire.
Hope it works out for you.