Maybe I've talked about this before. It was probably elsehwere. A candidate, let's call them "Alex", is completing the application and the address used in the Residence Address section is actually a business address. The phone number is a message service. The references are from people known long ago and not in any way related to the position or your industry. One or two of the references seem to be unclear about what a professional reference does. One of them provides excoriating comments.

The trouble is even though there are these uncomfortable quirks in the Alex's background, they showed up neatly attired and groomed. Alex proved to be quite knowledgeable in regard to the position duties and requirements. In fact, Alex proved to be quite popular among the office members; they are pretty straightforward about whether someone fits into the culture or not. All of the oral interviews were magnificent. Even the little situations fit into the interview to evaluate the not prepared speech and reactions to spontaneous occurrences proved to be exceptionally good.

Still, there's a nagging suspicion that something's amiss. Maybe Alex is a scammer who's living in a homeless shelter. (Actually, that may be a good indication that the position in the sales section would be a better fit.) Or it could mean that Alex is some type of terrorist who's invading the company to collect trade secrets. What sort of shady background is being hidden? It makes you feel inadequate that things are so murky with regard to this candidate. There are rules and laws about not hiring and even firing for things that have the taint of discrimination. It would be wise to tactfully and tacitly investigate this.

Even though Alex appears to be quite self sufficient and has proved to be reliable up to this point, there are factors that could pull at that presentation and destroy the image as well as the person. It's important that Alex use a business address because at this time, Alex is living in a shelter - maybe a domestic violence shelter if Alex is a woman with children. Even when Alex moves away from the shelter, their address needs to remain confidential because Alex is being stalked by the former domestic partner. The reason for the necessity doesn't need to become broadcast news. A note or comment to whoever is handling Alex's information that the business address be used as the contact address should be sufficient.

The fact is, a 2003 study found that 46% of homeless women reported staying in an abusive relationship because they had nowhere to go. In 2000, domestic violence was identified as the primary cause of homelessness; Alex should not be faulted for their present circumstances. In 2005, a report by the ACLU estimated that the number may be much higher because so many cases of domestic violence go unreported. Alex's address and residential circumstances are not of major concern in this situation.

There's still the matter of the confidential address. Alex has escaped from their abusive circumstances. They are free to start living a new, productive life. Right? After all, Alex applied for a position with your company and secured it. Not true. Alex still needs to exercise a high degree of care with regard to where they are and what they do. An abuser doesn't like to be exposed; they like it even less when they lose the object of their attention. They will do whatever they can to reclaim that possession and that will include stalking and harassment. That included and will continue to include acts that tend to interfere with work performance and being at work. It will include saying and doing things that discourage others from associating with their target and even break off having any type of relationship with them. (That's called creating isolation.)

A confidential address and a disposable cell phone number? Alex is using common sense safety measures that go toward protecting both Alex and whoever is associated with them. The incidence of stalking among divorced and separated people is 34 in every 1,000 individuals. "The most common reasons victims perceived for the stalking were retaliation, anger, spite (37%), or desire to control the victim (33%)." A 2009 Department of Justice ("DOJ") study compared and contrasted the incidents of stalking compared with harassment. It was found was that stalking is more prevalent in regard to perpetrator conduct. In reviewing the reported data, stalking incidents were 20% higher than harassment incidents, no matter what the gender of the target.

At this point, you're probably wanting something palpable in terms of a definition of or identifying instances of stalking. According to the DOJ, the following behaviors are included as some examples of stalking behavior:

* Repeated, unwanted, intrusive, and frightening communications from the perpetrator by phone, mail, and/or email.
* Repeatedly leaving or sending victim unwanted items, presents, or flowers.
* Following or laying in wait for the victim at places such as home, school, work, or recreation place.
* Making direct or indirect threats to harm the victim, the victim's children, relatives, friends, or pets.
* Damaging or threatening to damage the victim's property.
* Harassing victim through the internet.
* Posting information or spreading rumors about the victim on the internet, in a public place, or by word of mouth.
* Obtaining personal information about the victim by accessing public records, using internet search services, hiring private investigators, going through the victim's garbage, following the victim, contacting victim's friends, family work, or neighbors, etc.

Alex's use of a confidential address is not only understandable, it is a recommended strategy by the DOJ.

Another niggling matter are those references. There's a logical explanation for their character if it is accurate that Alex is a survivor of abuse, especially emotional abuse. An abuser's emotional control tactics include

* Prevented from knowing about or having access to family income
* Prevented from working outside the home
* Tried to limit contact with family and friends

It is understandable that there are few solid, recent references.

The other troubling thing about these current circumstances is you're not allowed to ask if Alex is a survivor of domestic abuse. That's an invasion of privacy. Alex has done as much as is possible given their situation to protect not only theirself but also any potential employer and workplace.

The technical skills and knowledge is there. The desire and motivation to do a good job is present. Alex's ability to get along with others and be an effective communicator is strong. In this case, it's probably safe to push those misgivings aside and complete the placement and hire.

The next step is making certain of the security protocols being used in the company and being responsible toward all of the individuals who are part of the workplace.

Resources:

* Domestic Violence and Housing, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (2004)
* Domestic Violence and Homelessness, ACLU Women's Rights Project (2005)
* Stalking Victimization in the United States: National Crime Victimization Survey, Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, Office of Justice Programs (January 2009)
* Stalking, Department of Justice, Office of Violence Against Women (2012)
* Stalking in America: Findings From the National Violence Against Women Survey, National Institute of Justice Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Justice (April 1998)

Sponsored link: Counting the Cost: Addressing Domestic Violence in the Workplace
Sponsored link: Domestic Violence Becomes a Workplace Issue.(Brief Article): An article from: State Legislatures
Sponsored link: A comprehensive approach to workplace violence.(Cover Story): An article from: Security Management