After a stolen SUV crashed in Wisconsin and its four occupants fled, one made the unfortunate decision to hide in a golf course port-a-potty. A golfer watched the events unfold and decided to take action, flipping the port-a-potty on its side, door facing down, to trap the car thief inside. (Oh, crap!) Police then arrived on the scene and arrested the now-stink-covered occupant.

Today’s tip is to help you avoid a stinky situation when requiring vendors to background check their workers.

When working with staffing agencies or other vendors supplying labor, you’ll often want to require background checks. But you have a few competing interests, so it matters how you impose this requirement.

First, you probably don’t want to do the background check yourself. For joint employment reasons, you don’t want to play a role in hiring and selection and, for practical reasons, you don’t want to adjudicate background check results on all of the vendor’s candidates. Require them to do the initial screening.

Second, it would be easy to provide the vendor with a list of automatic exclusions, but you don’t want to go there either. Background checks laws generally require an individualized analysis to be done. Avoid creating a “no hire” matrix.

So how can you make sure the vendor conducts an appropriate review of the results and doesn’t send you a worker with a concerning criminal history?

Here’s the strategy I prefer:

1. Require the vendor/staffing agency to perform the background check.

2. Require that they adjudicate the results.

3. But, also require that if they want to place anyone with a prior conviction for theft or violence, they must first notify you and provide a copy of the report and any additional information provided by the candidate.

4. Require that the vendor/staffing agency follow all background check laws.

5. Require that the vendor/staffing agency obtain consent from each candidate to share the results of any background check with your company. They should incorporate that concept into their consent document.

Here’s why I like this process:

First, as a practical matter, a vendor with this arrangement is very unlikely to send you anyone with convictions for theft or violence. They’ll prescreen those out because they know that’s a concern for you.

Second, if the vendor wants to advance someone with one of these convictions, it means one of two things: (a) there may be mitigating factors with this candidate that would support allowing the person to work, or (b) the vendor is being lazy, sending everyone through without running the first level adjudication you’ve required.

If (a), that’s good information. Conduct a second level adjudication. Consider mitigating factors. See how the candidate responds to a pre-adverse action notice. Avoid automatic exclusions and consider whatever facts the candidate provides.

If (b), you need to have a talk with the vendor because they’re not performing the first level adjudication that you’ve required. If you didn’t have this kind of notice process, you might never have known the vendor was being lazy in the adjudication process.

There are several decision points in drafting this kind of clause, but the points listed above are the main items to cover. Variations in drafting may focus on the timing of the convictions, the types of convictions to identify, whether to include drug testing or motor vehicle records checks, and which party performs various tasks related to pre- and post-adverse action notifications.

You’ll also want your contract to make clear that any decision you make that a candidate cannot be placed at your company is not a decision about their overall employment status with the agency. The agency can do what it wants with the person’s employment. All you’re saying is that the agency can’t assign that person to work for you.

By including a process like this in your agreements with staffing agencies and other vendors that supply laborers, you can stay on the right side of the background check law, manage joint employment risks, and still have the opportunity to block candidates who have a criminal history that creates unacceptable risk.

It’s too bad that future background check results for the car thief who got stuck in the port-a-potty won’t include that level of detail. Not that it would make a difference in screening out someone who steals cars, but it would be a fun detail to know. Yuck!

© 2023 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.