Violence in Workplace - employment verification?

Kymm

We recently terminated an employee who had physically assaulted his "girlfriend" in the employee parking lot at the start of his shift (she also ran into the plant yelling for protection - which we gave her.) My question is... IF we get an employee verification from some other company in the future, should I be telling them that there was an incident of "violence" ? Our policy is to only give out title and dates of employment, but I'm thinking I have read about a law that states we are required to tell possible "future" employers?
And is it a LAW or is it just "recommended"? And I'm a little "iffy" as well, because it was really more of a "domestic dispute" that occured in our parking lot... would that/should that make any difference?

jfletcher

As far as I am aware of, there is no specific law stating what you can or cannot say on an employment verification. Is your policy to release only dates of employment and title and is it in writing? If so I would not deviate from that line. Violence at the workplace is violence, whether they were both employees or not. I am fairly sure that the Law Letter here in Texas has covered this issue. Hopefully PORK or Dan will respond...I have learned quite a bit from both so far as well as others....good luck

Pork

KYMM: This is one of those post where I first recommend you check with your retained Attorney.

I, too, have recently begun to read that the protection from revealing information which after the fact is slanderous to the x-employee's character, by only revealing the employment dates of hire to termination is being eroded by the "violence in the work place situations". If you knew that this employee had a violent characteristic, a fact, as revealed by his attack in the work place parking lot, regardless of domestic nature of the anger, is a fact that the x-employer should have revealed! Your words in the post which indicate the nature of this attack was domestic, is words that should not be past on, that is probably your opinion and not supported by fact.

In the most recent seminar I attended this subject came up and the instructor expressed this same concern of one legal situation trumping another legal situation. He indicated that providing factual situational information, when provided with a written signed consent form by the x-employee should be sufficient to protect the x-employer from the slander charge. Make sure you do not add personal opinion about the individual. Like "Joe Friday", the facts mam only the facts.

Hope this helps!

PORK

Kymm

Pork... are you saying that I should get a written, signed consent form by the x-employee stating it's ok to give out this information? If so...yea right... like he's going to do that! :-)

Crout

I think Pork meant that potential employers will often send you a release signed by your ex-employee, and so that coupled with a FACTUAL statement would probably protect you.

Kymm

Do I feel stupid?? :-) Gotcha... obviously the release would come from the "potential" employer.. sorry!

Pork

KYMM: I am sorry, I meant to write "from the new potential employer", which they probably got in their application or during their interview process. Once you have that authorized release of information, it is my understanding we can release all factual information requested that is in your personnel record. With a signed release authorizing the release you could not be held liable for presenting the facts. Hear say or one's personal opinion of the situation or circumstances is not protected, so don't allow the new employer to talk you into something that is not fact. "Now, don't let anyone know I told you, but here is the real truth!" these words shall never roll across your lips even to me,it just want cut it.

PORK

dchr9203

It is not illegal to release factual information regarding employment. You get into trouble when its subjective, and when/if you violate your own policies. We require written consent for verifications. When we get phone solicits for empl ver we have them fax the request with signed consent, period. When employees give us a heads up that an EV is coming, we have them sign a release right then. That way, in a case like this, we are released to give factual information regarding employment and termination. We had an employee once that had documented behavior problems including anger management, sexual harassment and racial issues, and threatened violence when terminated. When I received a written/consented verification of employment from the local police force because he was applying to be a police officer, I released the factual information regarding the behavior problems. Had he been hired and licensed to carry a gun and in a position of "power", etc, and had an adverse outcome, we could have been held liable for not releasing that information.

Pork

Thanks, just my point and with a real life sample.

This forum is worthy of great postings and less contoversal BS, Thanks ML Smith!

PORK

Kymm

Well, I'm back... I undertand completely what you have all said in these past postings..however.. my question now is this.. IF we get an employment verification (by phone) from a "potential" employer AND they do NOT have a written "authorization" from the employee, then I should NOT give out any information on our ex-employee? And if I didn't, couldn't I be held "liable" if that ex-employee of ours was hired and committed some crime of violence at his new employer?

pork1

KYMM: Great question, this where I would seek my retained legal advice on each situation.

MY THOUGHTS ONLY: Without a signed release, it becomes a decision of the HR to make the right call. Is the situation so strong and leans toward a violent characteristic? I believe, I would inform the other HR that the individual is not subject to "rehire" and that the HR should explore further with the candidate the facts about his/her termination with our company. I, as a professional HR, know the meaning of those words and it is not slanderous, but it does allow for the "yellow flag" to become raised and flapping in the breeze. Privacy gets trumped when violence in the workplace becomes the central issue. A reasonable person could not expect the "a violance in the workplace" characteristic would not be "closely held" or kept "confidental" from another employer. The employee did the crime and must suffer the time!

PORK

SMace

Here is AZ law regarding reference immunity:

Arizona law regarding job reference liability if found at Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1361. The law provides protection for employers who provide job references for current and former employees. Under the law, a former employer may provide a requesting employer or agent acting on the employer’s behalf information concerning a person’s education, training, experience, qualifications, and job performance to be used for the purpose of evaluating the person for employment. An employer is immune from civil liability for the disclosure or the consequences of providing information if the employer, in good faith, provides information requested by a prospective employer about the reason for termination of an employee or about the job performance, professional conduct, or evaluation of a current or former employee. There is a presumption of good faith if either of the following is true:

¨ The employer employs fewer than 100 employees and provides only information concerning the employee’s education, training experience, qualifications, and job performance.

¨ The employer employs at least 100 employees and has a regular practice in this state of providing information requested by a prospective employer about the reason for termination of a former employee or about the job performance, professional conduct, or evaluation of an employee.

The presumption of good faith is rebuttable by showing that the employer disclosed the information with actual malice or with intent to mislead. Actual malice means knowledge that the information was false or was provided with reckless disregard of its truth or falsity.

Communications concerning employees or prospective employees that are made by an employer, prospective employer, or by a labor organization to a government body or agency that are required by law or furnished according to written rules or policies of the government body or agency are privileged. The employer, prospective employer, or labor organization cannot be held liable for such communications.




Your damned if you do and damned if you don't. Follow Pork's advice and consult an attorney. Then make a decision.

Shadowfax

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 08-17-04 AT 12:52PM (CST)[/font][br][br]Following up - I thiink Az law is fairly typical, that is, e/ers are generallyprotected if info is given in good faith. However, even when you have a written release, I suggest you give the infor in writing - otherwise you will be defending yourself over 'exactly' what info you gave, and you will need proof you did not say the guy was a violent person, or a lazy lunk, or a loudmouthed trouble ,maker.

I just noticed I've moved to North Carolina - when did I do that?

lorrie

I also noticed that when I preview a response before posting, it lists the state of the prior post. But when it is actually posted (not just previewed), the state shows up correctly.

I don't know why.

Shadowfax

Thanks Lorrie. I had about decided I was seeing things not there. It's a wonder isn't it, all those posts and nev er noticed. Scary.

mwild31

KYMM - Probably too late to add my two cents, but here goes. Good advice all around - my only exception is this - if your policies only state that your company will give name, rank, serial number, then I think that's all you should give out. Presumably, your attorney has already reviewed your policies (handbook) - right? x:-) And, you have them do a cursury look every time you have a revision to the handbook - right? x:-) If so, then you should follow them. That said, given the circumstances surrounding the former ee's termination, I would follow up with your attorney about this specific instance and see if they think a revision to the policy is necessary.