Please help. Hiring issue

[shanmor]

What is the name of your state? Texas

I have worked for the same company for the past 3 years. I recently interviewed for a position with another company. The manager stated that he would like to hire me and I told him I would like to think about it. I called the company back over the weekend to accept the position and was advised I would start the next week. I then resigned from my previous position. After the fact, the company called me back to let me know that I would need to complete a background check and that they would need to contact my current employer and I would then receive a call from HR and be offered the job. My previous employer charged a fee for verification of employment so I was advised that they could not complete my background check and thus I would not be hired. I assumed that I would be starting the new position when I was advised that I would start the next week. Furthermore, when I was advised that I would be hired pending a background check I was also very confident because I have a perfect record and a great relationship with my previous employer. Is there any legal action that I can take against this company? Sorry about the long post

 

[cbg]

I'm confused.

Which company do you want to sue? It's not the fault of the second employer that your previous employer charges a fee for employment verification.

 

[shanmor]

I was considering taking action against the new company. I may be mistaken, but it seems wrong that they offered me the postion prior to conducting the background check. It is not uncommon for corporations to charge a fee for employement verification. If the new company requires verification of employement as part of their hiring process shouldn't they complete this for everyone, not just people that work for small firms who do not charge a fee. I may be pushing it a bit, but it does not seem fair that a company can rule out hiring someone simply because their previous employer charges a fee to verify employement.

 

[cbg]

It is not illegal to offer a position contingent on a background check.

And as a matter of fact, it IS uncommon for an employer to charge for doing an employment verification.

 

[pattytx]

This is just for my benefit, because it brought up a question.

Can the employer even do the background check (or have it done) before the offer is made? I didn't think you could do such checks strictly based on applicant status.

 

[cbg]

I'd have to go back and look that up, Patty, I'm honestly not sure. FCRA really changed a lot of stuff. Beth or Suzie might know.

But it IS legal to make an offer contingent on a successful background check, and that's what happened here. The offer was made; THEN the background check was attempted.

 

[shanmor]

Your right. The offer was made and then the background check was attempted. However, the company chose not to complete the background check on the basis that the previous company charges for employment verification. Is a company able to rule out someone for an employment opportunity simply because they worked for a corportation before. By the way, many companies DO in fact charge for employment verification. You might want to check www.theworknumber.com...two-thirds of the fortune 500 companies use this same company to verify employement (and charge $12)

 

[Beth3]

However, the company chose not to complete the background check on the basis that the previous company charges for employment verification.
Refusing to pay the $12 isn't illegal but it's pretty cheap.

Is a company able to rule out someone for an employment opportunity simply because they worked for a corportation before. Yes.

By the way, many companies DO in fact charge for employment verification. You might want to check www.theworknumber.com...two-thirds of the fortune 500 companies use this same company to verify employement (and charge $12) This is a service that started emerging about 10 years ago. Many companies - especially larger ones - can field hundreds of phone calls a day for employment verification, references, etc. I can see why they farmed it out. The company provide the service then charges a fee to provide the info - it's how they get paid.

 

[cbg]

I didn't say no one charged for it, I said it isn't common. And it isn't, no matter what your website says. The large majority of employers in this country do not charge for employment verification.

 

[SuzieWahoozie]

As for the question of whether or not a background check can be performed before an offer is made, some parts can, but the FCRA limits credit checks and criminal checks (except driving records) to post-offer. Of course, physicals need to be done post-offer only, too. Collecting references, verifying immigration status, verifying education, and most other parts of a background check can be done anywhere in the process. It is uncommon for employers to do any type of check until post-offer, though, as it is a waste of time to check every applicant, or applicants that you are not seriously considering, or who are not seriously considering working for your company. It can be done, but most companies won't do it.

I agree with cbg that most companies do not charge for background checks, but I have heard of it. In fact, I even called to verify education credentials once and was routed to one of those types of lines and had to pay a fee to get the information - and that wasn't a previous employer, it was a major university from whom I was attempting to verify degree information on a former student!

Although, as Beth states, it's mighty cheap, it isn't illegal to halt a background check when someone wants you to pay for it. And it isn't illegal to withdraw any offer based on the results (or lack thereof) of a background check.

If that is the ONLY reason the offer was withdrawn, why didn't you offer to pony up the $12 yourself?