Posts Tagged ‘fraud prevention’

2
Aug/10
15

Criminal Records: Changes in Hiring For Connecticut

As reported in the Journal Inquirer June 28, 2010, Connecticut joins the growing list of states and cities adopting what is termed the “ban the box” movement within the hiring process.

The box the article is referring to is on the job application completed by each candidate.  The question asks if the candidate has ever been convicted of a crime.

The law for Connecticut goes into effect October 1, 2010.  The article states several cities including New Haven, Hartford and Norwich has also adopted the “ban the box” change. It appears the law change will only effect state and city positions at this time.

The change does not prohibit an employer from asking the question, just not on the initial job application form.  The theory is that if the candidate has been successfully screened into a potential hiring position, during a face to face the candidate can offer details and explanations as to why they have the conviction, whereas a check box on the application could lead to a sure fire screening out of being potentially hired.

As a fraud examiner who has dealt with many individuals who have made poor decisions, permanently effecting their family, reputation and career, I encourage every employer to ensure themselves that this question regarding the potential trustworthiness of a future hire is included within every hiring process.  It’s not to say that anyone convicted of a crime should not be hired ever again, certainly that should not be the case.  However, every employer should have all the facts about a candidate’s background to allow for an informed hiring decision.

Tags: , , , , ,

1
Jan/10
10

Employee Dishonesty Insurance – Generally Doesn’t Cover Everyone

I have posted previously on the importance of every employer to ensure employee dishonesty, employee fidelity and/or employee crime coverage is included within your current policies.  Often this policy is the only means for recovery from an employee theft.

Even if coverage is maintained, I am confident most insureds are unaware of two common limitations within the coverage should there be the potential for a claim on the policy due to a potential theft of embezzlement.

First, the coverage often does not cover the acts or actions of an owner, partner, shareholder, or member (LLC) of the insured.  So, for an example of something we commonly see where an owner or partner steals funds and/or assets from the entity and the other owners or partners, the coverage would likely not be applicable to provide restitution to the entity for the diverted funds – as the perpetrator was an owner or partner. The theory is that the insured cannot steal from themselves.

Second, the coverage usually covers any employee (defined within the policy) commonly referred to as blanket coverage.  There is at least one exception to who would be covered – someone who has stolen in the past.  If there is any evidence that the insured knew, or should have known, that an employee had been dishonest in the past, whether in their present employment or in previous employments, the individual is not insurable, and therefore any actions by that individual are not recoverable.  Further, once potential dishonesty is discovered on the part of any employee, any loss beyond that date of discovery by the individual is generally not recoverable as well (the insured should have mitigated their loss and prevented any further theft).

This should have a direct impact on the screening and hiring process for most employers.  If a potential candidate will have access to funds and/or assets within their employment, and the candidate has an issue of dishonesty in the past, it is likely if the candidate is hired anyway and a subsequent loss is suffered due to the actions of that employee, there could be no recovery through the policy.  In investigating the claim, the insurance carrier will request copies of the individual’s personnel file as well as conduct their own investigation into the background of the suspected perpetrator.  Chances are they will identify the past dishonesty and deny the claim.

These are not newly added restrictions to recently issued policies.  In fact these limitations have existed for years.  However, due the growing scrutiny we have been experiencing by carriers reviewing and investigating dishonesty claims to determine if payment should be made on the claims, it is apparent many employers who maintain this coverage are unaware of these limitations.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,