| In the 2009 issue of New Jersey eAuthority, | | | | employment history, to significant license and |
| there was news published regarding the Schley v. | | | | credit records, and many more. These |
| Microsoft Corp. case. Apparently Microsoft | | | | prerequisites are necessary in order for the |
| revoked its written job offer to a candidate after | | | | company to be able to evaluate an applicant or |
| failing the background check. According to the | | | | employee’s capacity, attitude, assets, and |
| story, the plaintiff was sent a letter by Microsoft | | | | behavior. |
| telling him that he’s being offered a job for | | | | In most cases, the incident above could have |
| the company. It did however, mention in the | | | | gone a different route had at some point the |
| letter, that the offer only is effective if he’s | | | | plaintiff disclosed the felony conviction prior to the |
| cleared after the background check. He probably | | | | job offer. This information could prove to be |
| missed that part through all the excitement, | | | | helpful in finding ways to contradict a |
| because he ended up, not only without a job, but | | | | company’s withdrawal because if they had |
| without a home as well. It seems that he went to | | | | known about it before, say during an interview or |
| talk to the hiring manager who, maybe simply | | | | something, they wouldn’t have the reason to |
| trying to be friendly, suggested he quit his job, sell | | | | be shocked after the conviction appeared during |
| his house, and transfer from New Jersey to | | | | the background check. However, if the said |
| Washington, to be prepared for the position, | | | | information wasn’t disclosed, then the |
| which he instantly did so. But he later then was | | | | applicant really is at fault. Basically because he |
| told he failed the admission for the job after being | | | | should’ve known the effects of a felony |
| found out that he had a felony conviction record. | | | | charge being in an individual’s background. This |
| This incident is a grave example not only of what | | | | type of information is a terrible case sensitive |
| jumping into conclusions could do, but what a | | | | issue that should immediately be relayed to the |
| criminal background check result could cause. | | | | hiring committee so as to be cleared whether it |
| Although the story might have sounded so | | | | would influence your application’s process. |
| negative because of the deprivation of work for | | | | When you’ve done all these, at least |
| the said plaintiff, it should be remembered that | | | | you’re guaranteed that when they do |
| the letter was at some pointed drafted to mean | | | | request a background check from you, they |
| well. It even included the conditions about the | | | | already know at some point what to expect |
| offered work. Almost every establishment around | | | | from it. And that the information you shared to |
| the state, especially the large ones, requires not | | | | them, after they had heard it, wouldn’t |
| only a criminal background check for its | | | | bother them nor go in the way of your application |
| employees and applicants, but a comprehensive | | | | anymore. If and only if, they’d still consider |
| background search all in all. These background | | | | the process after you’ve told them about the |
| checks cover everything from previous | | | | condition of your background record. |