Judges Say Google Background Checks Are Okay
from the yeah-I-did-it-but... dept
The idea of a Google search as a person's permanent record continues to gather a lot of interest -- whether it's people fretting that they can't be found or government agents using it as a tool. A consistently reoccurring theme is how employers use Google as a de facto reference or background check on potential employees, though many of these worries seem a bit overblown. However, one federal employee who got fired for misusing government property alleged that a Google search by an official as part of the investigation into his thefts violated his "right to fundamental fairness". A three-judge panel disagreed, rejecting the claim that the search, which turned up information about two previous times the guy had been removed from a job, affected the decision to fire him. The case seems to hinge on the use of the search, and whether it undermines due process in determining whether or not to fire the guy. The judges said that the official's Google search didn't constitute ex-parte communication, since it wasn't a communication between parties. That seems to be the crucial part of the ruling here, because it essentially means it's acceptable for employers (or at least the federal government, as an employer) to check out workers' backgrounds online. The judges seem to be saying (quite reasonably) that the internet shouldn't get singled out for special treatment, and that it should be considered as any other research source. Should any communication on the internet constitute prejudicial ex-parte communication, then it should be dealt with as such. The bottom line: just because your boss found out about your past online, it certainly doesn't mean they can't fire you.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
...
The bottom line: just because your boss found out about your past online, it certainly doesn't mean they can't fire you...
as long as confirm they are looking at the right person. I can understand people being fearful of employers googling (or whatever search engine) for their history. What I'm afraid of is the day that an employer uses info from a net search to fire someone and then the info turns out to be wrong. But let me guess I'm sure there is already some clause that protects said employer from a wrongful termination suit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ...
I did a search on myself and, try as I might, I couldn't find any information that was actually about me.
I suppose my name is pretty common,
but I also make it a point to keep my name off of myspace, livejournal, facebook, all the other crap that people seem to be getting in trouble for these days.
I mean, isn't that what net-handles are for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Well, you've been doing a great job here John, but we're going to have to let you go."
"What? Why? I have a family to feed!"
"We googled your name, and found out you listened to the Dead Kennedys, an anti-corporate punk band, when you were 17."
"How I wish I could turn back time..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And no, people, do not repeat their offenses.
You are a very judging and critical person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Verum
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...or...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ...or...
...but people like employers and stalkers have no idea how to even begin given how commonplace my legal name is.
The problem is after a while they will probably stop caring if they even have the right person. All it's gonna take is one person to get fired over some incorrect info.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Verum
As an employer I need to know if an employee has a history of doing 'bad things' (misusing govt. property, using illegal drugs, spouse abuse, etc.) because that could well have an impact on his ability to do the job (being responsible for govt. contracts, flying a commercial jetliner, working in an elder care facility, etc.).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Verum
I mean, it's the internet.
Any fool can seem credible.
Even me.
I'm a Doctor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just like...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just like...
Exactly. My real name is not "Charles Griswold". It's "Grolnar, Lord of the Blackest Dark and Destroyer of Worlds".
Oops, my secret is out. So much for that cushy job at the DHS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not all backgrounds are the same
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think its a crock
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then its going to get to the point where people don't even care if someone actually said something, and people will start impersonating each other (already happened to me) as a weapon against the person.,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]