Fresh Market reevaluating background checks after employee charged with murder

[giantsfan2016]

The Fresh Market is reevaluating how it conducts backgrounds checks after an Assistant Front End Supervisor at the Avon, Connecticut store was arrested in connection with a cold case murder and it came out that he is a registered Sex Offender in Colorado and yet his background check came out clean. All other employees in Avon are undergoing new background checks.

https://www.wfsb.com/news/local-store-responds-after-simsbury-murder-suspect-worked-there-for/article_aaa3b28e-c106-11e8-b996-7bfc84f0c232.html

[deerwrecker2017]

This in my upmost honest opinion is a real good reason to require the use of both Fingerprints and DNA samples for the use of Background Checks. If Fingerprints and/or DNA Sample was used in the Background Check of the Employee now facing Murder charges he would have ended up failing the check as both his Fingerprints and DNA Sample are on file in Colorado due to the Criminal Conviction that placed him in the Sex Offender Registry there.

[TheFugitive]

IMO retailers will NEVER resort to fingerprints and DNA in background checks, for various reasons.

1) Expense
2) They don't want to find themselves in the center of expensive and ongoing privacy litigation
3) The job market is already so tight they really can't afford to scare away applicants who resent having to submit to those.

I am certain they used a third-party agency to do their background checks.  That company is likely now on the hook for the liability from this, unless the problem was with state agencies failing to furnish them with accurate information.

I remember a trade magazine article from my days in retail which predicted that in the future retailers would be forced to hire people with sketchy backgrounds, whether they liked it or not, because that would be the only applicant pool available to them at these wages.  That has pretty much come to pass.

It's always a big concern when you get a sex offender in the building however.  The retail workforce is over 80% female, and employers have an obligation to protect them.

[deerwrecker2017]

IMO retailers will NEVER resort to fingerprints and DNA in background checks, for various reasons.

1) Expense
2) They don't want to find themselves in the center of expensive and ongoing privacy litigation
3) The job market is already so tight they really can't afford to scare away applicants who resent having to submit to those.

I am certain they used a third-party agency to do their background checks.  That company is likely now on the hook for the liability from this, unless the problem was with state agencies failing to furnish them with accurate information.

I remember a trade magazine article from my days in retail which predicted that in the future retailers would be forced to hire people with sketchy backgrounds, whether they liked it or not, because that would be the only applicant pool available to them at these wages.  That has pretty much come to pass.

It's always a big concern when you get a sex offender in the building however.  The retail workforce is over 80% female, and employers have an obligation to protect them.

The use of Fingerprints and DNA samples for Background Checks by retailers if it successfully keeps Sex Offenders out of the workplace would definitely be worth it as it would be beneficial to both the retail workforce and the customers as there are others out there would consider it a Public Safety issue.

[TheFugitive]

IMO retailers will NEVER resort to fingerprints and DNA in background checks, for various reasons.

1) Expense
2) They don't want to find themselves in the center of expensive and ongoing privacy litigation
3) The job market is already so tight they really can't afford to scare away applicants who resent having to submit to those.

I am certain they used a third-party agency to do their background checks.  That company is likely now on the hook for the liability from this, unless the problem was with state agencies failing to furnish them with accurate information.

I remember a trade magazine article from my days in retail which predicted that in the future retailers would be forced to hire people with sketchy backgrounds, whether they liked it or not, because that would be the only applicant pool available to them at these wages.  That has pretty much come to pass.

It's always a big concern when you get a sex offender in the building however.  The retail workforce is over 80% female, and employers have an obligation to protect them.

The use of Fingerprints and DNA samples for Background Checks by retailers if it successfully keeps Sex Offenders out of the workplace would definitely be worth it as it would be beneficial to both the retail workforce and the customers as there are others out there would consider it a Public Safety issue.

I'm not arguing that it wouldn't be beneficial.  Only that it will never happen.
Right now there is a long list of things that companies can do that would be beneficial, but
they don't because of the costs involved.

There are a number of jobs (primarily government or defense related) that require such a background check.  Many do not apply as they object to being fingerprinted and/or have privacy concerns over what happens to their DNA.

[deerwrecker2017]

Jobs that involving working with minors also require fingerprinting as part of the background check process.

In regards to privacy concerns over DNA samples a policy requiring the samples to be properly destroyed after the completion of the background check should be put into place.