In Depth May 29, 2008, 5:00PM EST

The Trouble with Background Checks

(page 3 of 4)

Browse Issues

Story Tools

A company attorney, Stephen DiTullio, says it would be "fraudulent" for the carrier to remove the reference to excessive grievances from Carter's DAC file. "That was an accurate portrayal of what led to his termination," DiTullio says. Marten Transport has addressed Carter's safety concerns, he adds.

John Griffith, 47, won a similar Labor Dept. ruling in October, 2003, against his former employer, Atlantic Inland Carrier. The administrative law judge ruled that the company wrongly fired Griffith in December, 2001, for complaining about the safety of his truck and ordered Atlantic Inland to remove unfavorable information from his DAC record.

Someone at Atlantic Inland—it's not clear who—had told DAC that Griffith was terminated and not eligible to be rehired because of his grievances. The company eventually deleted that information in January, 2004—more than two years after it was posted. During that time, Griffith says, it was hard to find trucking work. The Aiken (S.C.) resident turned to lower-paying odd jobs, although he recently got back behind the wheel making deliveries for a nursery. "Truck drivers live and die by DAC," he says. "They can ruin a driver's career with a few clicks of their mouse."

LIVING IN FEAR

USIS declines to comment on any specific cases. Gripes about its database have made "DAC" a popular verb in the industry, with drivers lamenting they have "been DAC-ed." Responding to the anxiety surrounding the database, USIS officials have defended their methods on radio interview shows aimed at truckers. They argue that screening is legally required, generally accurate, and keeps bad drivers off the road.

But Kristen Turley, director of market development and communications at USIS' commercial-services unit in Tulsa, concedes that no system is immune to mistakes and misuse. "There is a chance somebody who holds a grudge will put negative information in the database," she says. "We are not trying to blackball drivers or ruin their chance to get a job." When a driver disputes a background report, USIS asks its sources for proof supporting negative comments, she says. USIS doesn't seek such evidence up front. "Ideally that would be a good solution," Turley says, but it could dissuade past employers from submitting information in the first place.

The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act covers background screeners, but it hasn't been aggressively enforced. The law says screeners must use "reasonable procedures" to ensure "maximum possible accuracy." It also requires employers to give a copy of background reports to rejected applicants. An applicant can dispute the information, but the Federal Trade Commission has said employers must wait only five business days before hiring someone else, meaning that objections frequently become moot. Lately the agency has focused more on identity theft than on screening, Rebecca Kuehn, assistant director for privacy and identity protection, says.

ChoicePoint has run into trouble because of how it has disseminated personal data. A 1997 spin-off from credit bureau Equifax (EFX), the company stumbled in 2004, when it offered a $40 software package at Sam's Club (WMT) stores that allowed small businesses to obtain personal information on applicants. The company dropped the product after privacy advocates pointed out that it wasn't verifying whether users had a business license and a legitimate purpose for searching, as opposed to snooping on a neighbor or old boyfriend.

Then, in 2005, it came to light that ChoicePoint had given identity thieves pretending to be small business clients seeking background checks access to people's addresses, Social Security numbers, and dates of birth. ChoicePoint agreed in 2006 to pay a $10 million civil penalty to the FTC and $5 million more to compensate 160,000 consumers whose information had been compromised.