New reference check scams even HR pros are falling for
March 31, 2008 by Fred HosierPosted in: HR blunder of the week, Special Report
Just how tricky is it to give references about former employees? A pending lawsuit in New Jersey shows how not to talk about former workers.
Michael Oliveri was having a hard time finding a new job after he was fired from a Best Buy store in New Jersey.
He became suspicious after job offers from Circuit City and Target were withdrawn.
Oliveri created a fake e-mail account, making it appear he was an employee of Target. Then, posing as a Target employee, he asked for a “candidate reference for Michael Oliveri.”
This is the response Oliveri received from Best Buy HR: “I will give you the skinny on him but you can’t say you got any info from Best Buy or we can be sued. Just don’t hire him. He was hired as GM and demoted after 12 months or so because he sucked. Again, do not forward this email to anybody or say where you heard the info from because we were not allowed to give this info out, but I would hate you to get stuck with this guy.”
Well, turns out the Best Buy HR rep was right about two things: Oliveri is now suing the company, and she probably should have stuck to the corporate policy on reference checks.
New Jersey law prohibits interference with a prospective employment relationship.
Oliveri wants $100,000 in damages, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer.
Courts OK factual, negative references
Lawsuits like this one has made some companies so skittish about giving references that they’ve severely limited what their HR staff people can say when asked for one.
You probably know about companies that draw the line at length of service and job description.
But policies like those do all companies a disservice. If all companies had that policy, workplaces looking for new hires would never be able to find any useful information about job applicants.
The good news for employers is that courts having been ruling for them in similar cases brought by former employees.
A recent Connecticut court ruled in favor of a company that gave a negative reference for a former employee. The judge said companies can’t be punished for giving negative references, as long as they’re honest and without malice.
And the Connecticut ruling was based on similar ones in 19 other states.
Whether “he sucked” was honest and without malice in the New Jersey Best Buy case will be up to the judge.
Tags: Best Buy, reference checks, Target
April 4th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Using words like “he sucked” are very unprofessional; it doesn’t give one an idea of this candidate’s abilities or lack of skills. More appropriate would be to give examples of what caused his demotion and why he was terminated. Eg: poor leadership abilities as a GM, unable to perform assigned duties, unable to meet schedules, etc. Of course, being truthfulis extremely important. And before you terminate, ensure that you have documented prior disciplinary activity.
April 7th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Perhaps something like “he was unable to preform” or “preformance did not meet requirements” would have been both more professional and less likely to get them sued !
April 7th, 2008 at 11:52 am
The person who responded to a reference via email with “he sucked” gives all of us who feel we are HR professionals a bad name. Despite the fact that the response was completely unprofessional, I have never responded to a request for a reference on a blind email – don’t expect that to change anytime soon. What happened to requesting a release? Further, everything about the email was completely inappropriate. Either Best Buy has no training program for their HR reps or this person should have never been hired. Hopefully, they are reviewing these internal processes and the “hr rep” who responded to the email has been reassigned, retrained, or the best option, fired. There’s the real “skinny.”
April 7th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
I was shocked by the HR “professional” that sent the email reference, like David her lack of professionalism and the tone of the email. Was the reply really from an HR representative? I would rule against the company simply on the tone and lack of professionalism. The examples David gave were very good and document, document, document. You never know which employee will want to sue.
April 7th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
As a 13-year HR Professional, I can tell you that if anyone thinks this is the first time that an ex-employee has set up a false identity or involved friends or family to pose as a legitimate inquirer to find out what an ex-employer says about them, think again. It happens more than you know.
Secondly, all requests for employment reference information should require a signed release form from the ex-employee and should never be handled through email or via phone.
Lastly, I must correct you; it was NOT an “HR Pro” who put words like that in writing. I would love to know who hired that “HR Pro”. This is one of many reasons why HR gets a bad wrap.
April 10th, 2008 at 7:40 am
In this case the “don’t tell anyone you heard it from me” should have been the first concern. If you can’t say to or in front of the individual you should not say it at all. The reference should be restricted to a professional response “he did not meet the expected job duties, or his abilities were found to be overstated”, both vague but enough to let them know that the employee should be looked at based on position being offered. This is an example of a person not aware of how what they do effects others, not just the old employee but also the family of that individual, the company, their supervisors and training professionals within the company among a few.
I wonder if anyone asked them how they would feel if Best Buy gave them a reference “She has a big mouth, is unprofessional, and cost the company alot of money as a result”? Maybe a little gesture of empathy for the individual would go a long way to help them in the future!
May 12th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Who in their right mind would give a reference by email. Might as well post the information on a website. We take personnel information very seriously. We get about 4 request per week where company wants us to Email them employment information on an ex employee. We also get about twenty request with out any sort of documentation.
June 19th, 2008 at 6:09 am
[...] Blunders has already written about how badmouthing a former employee can get a company in trouble. The opposite — giving a glowing recommendation that glosses [...]
June 20th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
I agree with what everyone said however, in industries that are a small network where everyone knows everyone, people will find a way to get around the treditionaly processes and get the so call load down on an x-employee. Many times it can be at a social networking or educational conf. Once the damage is done, there is very little a person can do but utilize the legal process. I am not sure why people feel it neccessary to do things such as described. There is more to it then this is just a poor performer. The giver of the reference that feels driven to be so descriptive has something aganist the ex. Just my observations.
June 20th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Oh dear. This is unbelievable. I am in a mid-sized company, and am the only person authorized to provide VOEs. I will answer rudimentary questions via phone (i.e., hire/termination date), but must have authorization in writing before I dig much deeper. This was the epitome of unprofessionalism. Unbelievable indeed.
June 20th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Kudos to the former employee to have insight to devise such a “sting”!
What HR professionals need to realize is that employees of this era are extremely savvy in regards to employment law. We have to represent our companies with the true professionalism.
Best Buy’s response was wrong and inappropriate on so-o-o-o many levels!
I’m embarrassed for them…
August 8th, 2008 at 10:01 am
I seriously doubt the corporate office at Best Buy knew that this representative was giving unauthorized references on former employees. The best outcome would be for Best Buy to immediately terminate this individual and file suit for breach of confidentiality. The person can also possibly be sued for defamation by Oliveri.
Companies should adapt policies that ALL former employee references are first checked by their legal department, and/or have a written authorization from the former employee.
October 26th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
I filed a “Gender Discrimination” case against my former company shortly after being placed on a 90-day Improvement Plan that included 5 trumped-up charges in which one manager did not agree with what the other wrote. My other two peers where shocked to discover this after I had them fill-out a survey on my work performance for 2007 and were also stunned to discover that I also had not received a well earned bonus for work done in 2007 in addition to producing a video that got our division additional funding (from the company’s board members) while all 4 males received substantial bonuses.
When the 90-plan was up I was let go by HR indicating my job had been eliminated due to a slump in the housing market and downsizing (and indicated the lay-off had nothing to do with the pending gender discrimination suit).
Now I am interiewing for new jobs and passing the screener calls and having great interviews but everything stops after that. My personal references aren’t being checked, but I am assuming the last job listed on my resume is being checked and HR must be revealing things that are stopping me from getting the job.
I was the hardest and best worker this division had and was often asked to implement a new methodology after receiving only 5-days of training while all the males got training from start to finish on their jobs using this new methodology to the tune of $50.,000 -$100,000.
Any advice?
(I have hired a labor lawyer, and so far it has taken 3 months to get the company that layed-me off to even come close to accepting my terms based on the fact that I was discriminated against based on my gender).
Should this go to court, the company will have a hard time justifying the 5-points in the 90-Day Improvement Plan and why they did nothing to help me improve after the plan was given to me.
They will also have to justify why nothing was mentioned in 2007 that there was a problem with my performance and why they gave me $2, 200 bonus in December 2007. (The males also got bonuses at that time)
November 10th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Whether the employee was a good employee, mediocre employee, or just plain bad employee, this company will probably lose this lawsuit because of the lack of professionalism demonstated and recorded by the HR Manager. Using the word “sucked” and telling the individual via email “not to tell anyone where the information came from” demonstrates a very, very high level of poor judgement and petty behavior. This one email, in my opinion, totally destroys the company’s credibility. That is going to hurt in court.
November 10th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Oh, I forgot to mention. The only redeeming factor is that the HR Staff member who provided the email reference clearly states that she will get fired if she got caught – admitting to knowing it was against company policy to give out this much detail. Even so this does not diminish the damage caused to the former employee in their job search.
April 13th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
I’ve worked in HR for a few years, and the best policy seems to be that it is okay to give performance-based information (employee was unorganized, often late, but had great team working skills and solid communication) but generally not a good idea to give specific information regarding a termination or disciplinary actions.
April 15th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
It hurts me to only give dates of employment and position held on unfavorable individuals. I understand the law and ramifications of the situation at Best Buy. It was very unprofessional for this type of reference check to be given. My “do-the-right-thing” side of my personality wants to protect other employers from going through the heartache we have had to endure from embezzlers, psychopaths and sexual deviants. I would wish a world where when I do an employment check that the person would answer truthfully and professionally to the REAL reason why there was a seperation of employment and would you hire this person again. I can DREAM, can’t I?