Convicted sex offender

Shadowfax

Manaagement is anonymously informed that its maintenance man since 1999, who has master keys to over 300 residential apartments, some of which are families (w/ children) was convicted in 1994 of two counts of felony sexual conduct, w/child under the age of 13. E/ee admits, but syas it was all retribution of wife when going through some rough spots. Part of his job is to go into homes to repair heat, water etc - residents may or may not be at home, may or may not have left a school age cchild home alone with a m inor illness. He is on sexual offender list accessible to anyone who wants to check. Problem termination? Pitfalls?
This ee is not otherwise a member of a protected class. Anonymous caller threatened to tell everyone in the complex if ee isn't fired. I see some legitimate fear if he stays (and vacancies). On the other hand, the conviction is fairly old. But, access to other residences is a real security concern. Or is it? Apprciate any thought you all may have. Thanks.

Parabeagle

I faced a similar dilemma a couple of years ago. We had a hotel front desk clerk who had a three year-old conviction for rape and we found out about it quite by accident. My "out" was the fact that after I confirmed it, I determined that he lied on his application. He checked "No" in answer to the felony conviction question.

In your case, especially since he is not a member of an otherwise protected class, I would want to err on the side of tenant safety. I'd rather risk defending some action against a former employee under these circumstances than risk an action for negligent hiring.

PS - Anonymous caller should mind his own bloody business and butt out.

HRsage

I was wondering what he put on the application as well. I assume your application asks about convictions. If he put "No" then it was a lie and you can term easy enough.

I would still term anyway to err on the side of caution as Beagle said. I don't think convicted sex offenders should have access to anyone's personal dwellings.

rad

Agreed...there have been a few posts lately about children and sex offenders- what to do, who to believe, etc. My vote is still to err on the side of the children's safety.

Balloonman

I would suspend immediately pending investigation, have him turn in keys. Pay him while he is suspended. Review the application, if he in fact falsified it, immediately terminate for that reason. End of discussion, nice and simple.
If he did not, and he has been a model employee, then you have a dilema. You cannot allow him to continue current job with keys. Do you have another position he could do? Just a thought.
My $0.02 worth.
DJ The Balloonman

Parabeagle

I don't think there's much of a dilemma even if he has been a model employee. Let's assume for the sake of argument that he checked "yes" on the felony conviction box, or there is no such box on the application form. The fact remains that you have knowledge of facts (assuming you have confirmed it) that have a direct impact on the individual's employability and you have an obligation to maintain a safe workplace for your employees, not to mention the obligations to your tenants. Sit the individual down, tell them what you know, that you have confirmed it, and advise them that under the circumstances you can no longer employ him.

Shadowfax

Problem is, the app simply asked if convicted of a felony last five years. Correct answer - no. No background check. App will be changed, and all apps submitted to background check in future. I agree we need to err on side of safety and security. Not just kids, but older women living alone - I wouldn't let my mom stay where I knew someone with that background had a master kery. No other place to put him either, and he was a pretty good employee. Got the keys last week, now need to make final determination. Understandably, he is having an absolute conniption, making all sort of threats: "I paid my debt..etc" but I can''t see a way out except term. Rather defend his litigation than soome assualt. Just needed encouragement I wasn't missing something fundamental. I'r really be interested in someone taking his side and aarguing the position. Any takers?

HRsage

Didn't you say that he's been there since 1999? If the conviction was in 94 wouldn't that be within the 5 years? Am I just counting wrong again?

cebudragonlady

Now the man has been a model employee, and there have been no problems with him, has there ?. The problem with ANNONYMOUS callers ( perhaps with an axe to grind )is the damage it can cause to people's lives. In America, there are many people
who being released from prison, want to go straight and lead honest lives going forward. It gets kind of hard, if no one will hire them or if they live in constant fear of losing their jobs, if their past is exposed. In your State, is there any law which prohibits retaining this man?

If you fire him, you place a greater weight on an ANNONYMOUS caller's word , versus the performance of your employee on the job.

Chari

Parabeagle

I disagree, Chari. You would not hire a convicted bank robber as a teller, even if he was convicted and "paid his debt to society" twenty years ago. The liability exposure for the bank would be far too great. Same thing here. Speaking from personal experience, I hated to lose the employee we had - but the fact remains, I couldn't afford to let the company face that kind of potential exposure. It's one thing to want to assist a rehabilitated offender, but it's quite another to sacrifice safety to do so.

cebudragonlady

Beagle-
At this factory we hired a young man straight out of the California Youth Authority, where he had been doing time for drug offenses. We knew about his past. He did his work well, stayed out of trouble - we gave him time off to see the probation officer as scheduled . After a couple of years, this man got a better job. I am sorry we could not pay him enough to keep him.

In the banking industry that you refer to, I am not sure if there is any law which would prohibit he hiring of a person convicted of bank robbery twenty years ago- is there one Beagle?

Chari

Parabeagle

That's admirable, Chari, and if we could all do that kind of thing I'm sure we would. The individual was out of the CYA? What did he do? Moreover, what kind of a position did you put him into? Did it relate in any way, shape or form to his offense (did you have him manufacturing pharmaceuticals, for example?). Hiring someone with a felony conviction in an occupation completely unrelated to the nature of his offense is fine. I have no problem with that, as long as he keeps his nose clean and performs his job to standards.

However, I stand by my banking analogy. You do NOT hire a convicted bank robber as a bank teller. You do NOT hire a maintenance person convicted of a person-to-person crime and give them the keys to a whole bunch of occupied apartments. The liability exposure is too great and I can't think of an insurance company in the entire world who would disagree with my assessment.

cebudragonlady

The young man had done time for drug dealing. We put him in a welding position. He kept his nose clean and his work was up to our standards.

And if a person is convicted of burglary - a property crime, some twenty years ago but had gone straight after serving time - would that exclude him from working as an apartment maintenance man? What bothers me is that an ANNONYMOUS caller could ruin people's lives.

Chari

Parabeagle

I understand the anonymous caller aspect is what you have the problem with. I do, too, in case you didn't notice the last sentence in my initial post. Unfortunately, how you came by the knowledge is less important than the fact that you now know, and have confirmed the truth of the matter. You have knowledge of a material fact that relates to the individual's past and directly affects his ability to do the job. I'm not saying it's fair, or it's right. It's just a fact of life. As far as the anonymous caller is concerned, I place little stock in anonymous complaints but that doesn't detract from the fact that you have to deal with them. Especially if the allegation is confirmed.

As far as the convicted burlgar is concerned: Sorry, I wouldn't take that risk, either.

Parabeagle

Before you change your application, check your state law. Some states will not allow a blanket inquiry such as "have you ever been convicted of a felony?" Some do put a time limit on it (e.g., Washington State only lets you ask for felonies in the last seven years).

mwild31

? Parabeagle - WAC 162-12-140 found on the HRC site states 10 years - is there another WAC that I should be aware of?

marc

It may not seem fair, but the consequences of crimes follow the perpetrators long after officially paying one's debt to society. Sexual offenders, expecially with children is one example. The EE has admitted the conviction, but then gives you some story about spousal retribution. Don't you think that story would have been told in the courts when he was being tried? It obviously did not stop the conviction, and the way plea-bargaining goes on in the judicial system, there may have been even more to the whole thing than you will ever know. How frequently do the original charges go all the way through the system to an up or down vote on being guilty?

If you are really interested in having the company live with the exposure this EE represents, then you have to do way more than you have described in this post. I am not sure what enough would be, but psychological evaluation of fitness for duty seems like a good start.

Just imagine what you would have to come up with to answer senior management or tenants who ask why the guy is still with you. The conviction was old and the guy has been a good employee just are not enough too offset some negligent hiring and supervision claims.

In our state, convicted felons are not a protected class. Are you in an At-Will state? That could also play in this scenario. I applaud your desire to not give in to a knee-jerk reaction and fire the person, but after you carefully consider all the factors, you may still need to let him go.

Don D

This seems to be an opinion poll. That being the case, I would terminate the gentleman's employment. I don't know the proof of this, but am told that sex offenders, particularly pedophiles and abusers never go straight, only underground. My opinion has no value at all, but I would not want to live in the complex knowing you employ an individual with this background. Nor would the jury care that a few years had passed since the conviction. If the jury or the judge (if it was a plea) didn't believe his story about a scorned wife out to get him, why would you? Feelings, emotions, sympathy and empathy aside, ask yourself my famous question: What's the worst thing that can happen if I decide to keep this guy in this position? And run that scenario out as far as it leads in how many ever directions it goes. Let us know your answer to the question.

Rockie

I agree with Don on this. Most law enforcement will tell you the same thing - there is no such thing as rehabilitation for these folks. I'm not sure what "retribution for his wife" means. Does this mean that he was angry at his wife and went out and sexually assaulted someone?

The liability for keeping someone like this in a situation where he has "easy access" to others is much greater than terminating him.

rad

Better yet, ask yourself how you'd feel knowing this guy had the keys to YOUR apartment...

Whatever

In my apartment building, the elevators are manned. Once, when my younger daughter was 3,another tenant and I brought our kids home from pre-school. There was a new elevator operator. He bent down, gave my daughter a pat on the head and then moved his hand lower. He was gone within 15 minutes.
Fire this guy otherwise you are playing with fire.

Don D

It took you fifteen minutes to raise your knee from a stationary position to his crotch??

Whatever

No, it took me 15 minutes to lock up my daughter, contact the knee busters and find the unregistered gun I bought in the South.

scottorr

I agree with Whatever!!! You are allowed to term if he lied on his application or if the offense is related to the crime. For instance a bank robber not being able to work in a bank or child molester not having access to children. Having worked in psychology for many years, I understand that there is no cure for this type of disorder. If you are aware of the offense and you still permit this individual to have access to children you can be named in a civil suit.

Shadowfax

I really appreciate everypnme's input on this. I acknowledge it was somewhat of an opinopn poll. but, if ultimately a mjudge, or God forbid, a jury ends up looking at this, then all of your thoughts will be helpful. I agree with those who had misgivings about the anonymous message, but once it was confirmed it seemed of little improt how we came up with the info. He's being fired today, and I'll let you know if we hear from him again. Thanks.

cebudragonlady

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 01-20-04 AT 04:28PM (CST)[/font][br][br]If he is being fired today, cover your behind so you don't hear from him - offer a fair severance in exchange for release from liability if your policy allows it. Remember, he was a good employee.

And also, maybe in the future - you should have a policy regarding ANONYMOUS calls. What if someone made an ANONYMOUS call complaining about other employees at the complex? - do those people get fired too ? Everyone has to be treated equally !

Chari

Balloonman

Chari,
Get off your high horse..........while we do not like the anonymous call........he is a sex offender. End of discussion.
I have hired people out of prison, would I hire someone convicted of theft to be in a position to handle money or be in a position to steal, NO. While most people deserve a second chance, I am less inclined to agree sex offenders deserve a second chance if it means being around women or children, and definitely not if they would have keys to the apartment.
Term him, and don't feel bad shadowfax, he is a sex offender.
My $0.02 worth.
DJ The Balloonman

mwild31

Hi Chari - I usually take a similar position, however, in this instance it sounds as though mgmt already acted on the tip & confronted ee with the information & ee confirmed the conviction. Now that the ee confirmed - anonymous call or not - it's out there & can't be taken back. I would proceed with term. shadowfax. Let us know how it turned out.

Parabeagle

Chari, I agree that anonymous phone calls are not the best way to obtain information, but in this case the fact remains that the tip was correct, and confirmed. Would you ignore an anonymous tip informing you that one of your employees was embezzling? Would you not at least discreetly look into it? And then what would you do if your investigation confirmed it? Would you discount the crime simply because the tip came from an anonymous source? That's ludicrous, of course you wouldn't. You would deal with the embezzlement.

Don D

I agree with the decision to terminate, obviously, since I recommended it early on. Although I usually disdain anonymous calls, let's not straddle the neck of the anonymous caller, the messenger if you will. It could have been a single mother in the complex or an old man who was afraid or a grandmother who heard the news about this guy or his cellmate or Goober at the gas station or any number of other well meaning people. It matters not. The caller is not the issue. Nor is the anonymity of the informant. The information was what it was and is what it is. It was confirmed and it is the only factor here. The caller may very well have saved the company's bacon!

Shadowfax's next dilemma is dealing with the employment verification calls that will follow. And the second challenge is beefing up his background check procedure.

LeeR

couldn't agree more. if the information is true why would anyone be angry at an anonymous caller spreading, of all horrible things, the truth. EE needs to go find a job where he doesn't have the opportunity to be alone with children.