The tragic shooting spree at Virginia Tech in April made us all stop and think: From a personal standpoint, we feel for the victims and their families. We worry about our loved ones, thankful that they're safe. Professionally, these types of events cause us to question workplace safety. And though corporate violence has actually decreased in recent years, there are still approximately 500 incidents (and 2 million threats of violence) each year.
Identifying potentially dangerous applicants through the hiring process is made even more difficult as it's estimated that up to 24% of applicants misrepresent employment history, and 16% falsify education credentials. And while it's no guarantee, smart screening and background checks can help reduce the risk.
The depth of pre-employment scrutiny will vary according to the level and sensitivity of the job, the specific policies of the employer, and varying state antidiscrimination and privacy laws. But according to the FBI, these general findings can raise red flags:
" History of drug and alcohol abuse
" Past conflicts with coworkers
" Past convictions for violent crimes
" Defensive, hostile attitude
" History of frequent job changes
" Tendency to blame others for problems
Unfortunately, as hiring professionals, we know that using this information isn't always easy (or possible) because it's not always legal. Laws designed to protect applicants and employees can also cause potentially costly liability issues for employers.
"Now more than ever before, employers must assess employees individually and without inadvertently applying discriminatory criteria," states Robert Prorok, director, Labor & Employment Group at Cohen & Grigsby law firm. "Through thorough human resource assessment and background screening procedures, employers can obtain a fairly realistic preview of a candidate. It is important to take a look at the total picture and evaluate the candidate, the position and if that person is a fit for the job on all fronts," said Prorok.
One potential source of liability is the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The act prohibits discrimination against people with physical or mental disabilities, whether real or perceived.
" At no point in the hiring process can you ask applicants if they have a history of mental illness or drug abuse. And be careful what you ask in an interview or in screening questions - if the answer is likely to yield information about mental illness, you could be violating the law.
" In limited circumstances, the ADA permits employers to inquire about an individual's mental disabilities. Employing the EEOC-approved "fit-for-duty" examination allows employers who observe bizarre employee behavior to have the employee examined to determine his/her ability to perform the essential functions of the job, with or without a reasonable accommodation. Understanding and cautiously applying the fit-for-duty exam allows employers to make informed, legal job decisions to avert a workplace disaster.
" When evaluating potential employees, consider the EEOC's "Enforcement Guidance on the Americans with Disabilities Act and Psychiatric Disabilities. It states that an employer can decline to hire an applicant whose history of violence is the result of a mental/psychiatric disability only if the disability renders the employee unqualified or the employer can prove that the applicant would pose a "direct threat."
You should also use caution not to discriminate against applicants with a criminal record. Estimates show that 8% of professional hires have criminal records, and figures are even higher for entry-level candidates. But many states forbid denying employment based solely on a prior criminal conviction. Employers could actually be sued for discriminating against job applicants with a criminal background unless there's a direct relationship between the offense and the specific employment being sought.
The situation becomes more clouded as the Internet and other shared resources make information so easily accessible. Some employers use state databases, which are growing in number and accessibility, to screen applicants for any record of violent acts. But this often conflicts with state policies aimed at rehabilitating ex-offenders. Add to that, the fact that some federal courts interpret Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as prohibiting employment decisions based on an applicant's arrest record because they may be arrested for a crime they did not commit.
To make things even trickier, employers can find themselves the target of a negligent hiring lawsuit, with monetary awards in the millions. This means an employer can be held responsible for NOT investigating the criminal background of a person who later commits a crime. Plaintiffs bear the burden of proof, needing to show that the employer could have reasonably expected them to be harmed and failed to use reasonable care when hiring the 'violent' individual.
So what can you do?
" In addition to properly conducted background and criminal checks, a structured interview can be a valuable screening tool. A trained interviewer is able to probe beneath the surface and learn a lot about individuals and their character. Be sure the questions are relevant to the job, and phrase them around past behavioral performance. For example, don't just ask, "What would you do if another employee criticized a job you were doing. Instead phrase the question as, "Tell me about a time an employee criticized a job you were doing, and explain how you responded.
" Personality tests and psychological assessments that measure several competency areas can provide useful information. But beware of assessments designed specifically to identify "high risk candidates - they tend to eliminate too many applicants because the false positive rate can be high. Rather you should look to assess for high scores in three specific competency areas: low locus of control, negative affectivity and interpersonal insensitivity. In other words, don't try to weed out those who score poorly in these areas; rather identify those who score well in these competencies, and you'll naturally select individuals with a low probability for violence. Learn more in the Assessing for Violence whitepaper.
" Be sure that all testing, in whatever form, is job relevant. Though it can seem harmless to an employer, questions or assessments that don't relate strongly to the job could end up being legally challenged.
" Finally, protect yourself from those legal claims - be able to show clear documentation and validity evidence to support the use of your testing methods.
"With the number of discrimination lawsuits on the rise, employers must remain neutral during the hiring process and base hiring decisions only on 'job-related' criteria," says Prorok. "Employers must be consistent when assessing applications and judge applicants on qualifications, not stereotypes, assumptions, or blanket policies. Look at each candidate's skill set and how he or she is able to contribute to the position and fit into the overall environment of the organization."
Bottom line is that you should take steps to identify potentially violent individuals and keep them from being hired into your organization. Sure, it's not always easy, but addressing the issue in advance could save your company more than just money.
