Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What can an previous employer tell a potential employer

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    He should have just went back and tested.

    Comment


      #32
      To my knowledge there are no laws preventing a former employer from disclosing any info to another perspective employer. Most companies only confirm dates and salary if provided by the company calling. Why most don't provide other info is due to fear of a defamation lawsuit. If a former employee is able to prove the information is false they can win big. Most companies just don't want to be sued. However small companies without a strong HR or legal team, often give out more info than they should.

      In this case, the employee refused to come back to take the test. Regardless of the other issues, his refusal to come back and submit to testing as requested is grounds for dismissal. He has a few options, get an attorney to write a letter indicating that he views their past actions as defamation and request they cease and desist and only on confirm information provided; try to sue them for defamation; list the reason on future applications and attempt to explain or, don't list them in fixture applications. The bottom line is he was not layed off, he was terminated.
      Last edited by Humper; 02-09-2013, 05:35 AM.

      Comment


        #33
        Bummer.

        Comment


          #34
          Different rules apply for DOT compliance. A driver must disclose all employment for the prior ten years when applying for a driving job. The prospective employer must contact all previous employers that were related to driving. The past employer can disclose anything that is true, but many will only confirm dates of employment and whether the person is eligible for rehire. The more that is revealed, the greater the chance that someone will cry foul and lawyer up. So, it is best to just confirm dates and let it igo at that.

          In this guys situation, it sounds to me that he did refuse a post accident drug test. If he revealed that during his interview, I would understand and not use it as a disqualification.
          Some employers are really **** about post accident drug testing and use no common sense in their approach to testing. We try to use the reasonable suspicion approach, which would not have called for him to come back to do a pee test for a bumped pole. If he been involved in an accident involving other vehicles or people, it would be a cya situation and a test would be called for.

          Comment


            #35
            Unfortunately no matter how you say it he refused to come back in for a drug test. Since refusal is looked at about the same as a dirty test I'm guessing he will be feeling the results of making that choice for quite a while.

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by WCB View Post
              I do not know the law but I always thought they could only say if you worked there, how much you made and if you were eligible for re-hire.
              Have him contact the labor board, EEOC or maybe a labor lawyer...
              He would not be eligible for re-hire. It's logical to think the next question would be why not? Because he refused a post-accident drug test.

              Originally posted by 60 Deluxe View Post
              Different rules apply for DOT compliance. A driver must disclose all employment for the prior ten years when applying for a driving job. The prospective employer must contact all previous employers that were related to driving. The past employer can disclose anything that is true, but many will only confirm dates of employment and whether the person is eligible for rehire. The more that is revealed, the greater the chance that someone will cry foul and lawyer up. So, it is best to just confirm dates and let it igo at that.

              In this guys situation, it sounds to me that he did refuse a post accident drug test. If he revealed that during his interview, I would understand and not use it as a disqualification.
              Some employers are really **** about post accident drug testing and use no common sense in their approach to testing. We try to use the reasonable suspicion approach, which would not have called for him to come back to do a pee test for a bumped pole. If he been involved in an accident involving other vehicles or people, it would be a cya situation and a test would be called for.
              Our company is one of those **** companies.
              ANY accident requires drug test, including a breathalyzer test.
              Refuse and you're fired on the spot.
              He should've taken the test. On the other hand, the manager should've never let he leave.
              If we have an accident, we're supposed to get the vehicle out of the roadway if possible and wait for a supervisor to come pick us up to go pee.

              Originally posted by Old Bald Guy View Post
              Unfortunately no matter how you say it he refused to come back in for a drug test. Since refusal is looked at about the same as a dirty test I'm guessing he will be feeling the results of making that choice for quite a while.
              Unfortunately this is probably true for him.
              There are a lot of people looking for work right now. Someone who refused a drug test will be on the bottom of the list.

              Comment


                #37
                Hmmmm, if they cannot say anything how would it be a reference? The whole reason for a reference is to find out your past work history and performance, not that you worked there and when. it already says that on the document the person is holding. I have been a company owner for 15 years and I have rarely if ever said anything bad about anyone. I figure that it didn't work out with us but there is no reason to further complicate the persons life. Maybe they will do better at the next job.

                Comment


                  #38
                  I think they can say whatever they want. Most companies have policies against giving anything other than dates of employment and last job title. In fact my work has a special number just for this. The person on the other end of the line doesn't know anything about that person other than those 2 items.

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Lots of incorrect info here.

                    Of everyone that has responded, Sparkles has it correct.

                    You cannot say anything negative about a former employee....period.

                    Dates of employment and whether or not they are "eligible" for rehire is it.

                    Like it or not that is the law, even in the right to work state of Texas.



                    Now you can say whatever you want about a former employee to the TWC if they file an unemployment claim and you dispute it.



                    The Original Subject of the thread probably should have gone back and pee'd in the stupid cup and like was said, probably more to the story. If someone is a solid and valuable employee you will keep you job when accidents happen.

                    I will put up with a lot of crap from an employee if they make the company money.

                    Comment


                      #40
                      They can say anything they think they can get away with--best policy is to only confirm dates of employment.

                      Comment


                        #41
                        You mentioned driver logs. Does he have a CDL? If so, refusing to take a drug screen is not allowed. It gets reported and they look at that as being guilty and goes on his DAC. This info does and can be reported when they request DAC info and will tell them the results. No one will him if he shows a positive drug screen.

                        Comment


                          #42
                          "One of the questions I get asked frequently is "What can an employer say about former employees?" Some job seekers presume that companies can only legally release dates of employment, salary, and your job title. However, that's not the case.
                          Answer: Can an employer say a former employee was fired or terminated for cause? How about saying that you quit without notice or your attendance record wasn't good? Are there limits to what an employer can say about you?
                          What Former Employers Can Say About You

                          There are no federal laws restricting what information an employer can disclose about former employees. If you were fired or terminated from employment, the company can say so. They can also give a reason. For example, if someone was fired for stealing or falsifying a time sheet, they can explain why the employee was terminated.

                          That said, because of laws regarding defamation (which is slander or libel) companies are usually careful about what information they provide to hiring managers confirming employment or checking references. What they say has to be the truth or the company can be subject to a lawsuit from the former employee. Legally, they can say anything that is factual and accurate.

                          Concern about lawsuits is why most employers only confirm dates of employment, your position, and salary.

                          State labor laws vary, so check your state labor department website for information on state labor laws that limit what employers can disclose about former employees."

                          So there are no federal laws against it.

                          Comment


                            #43


                            "2005 Texas Labor Code CHAPTER 103. DISCLOSURE BY EMPLOYER OF INFORMATION REGARDING CERTAIN EMPLOYEES OR FORMER EMPLOYEES
                            More Sharing ServicesShare|
                            View Current Version


                            LABOR CODE


                            CHAPTER 103. DISCLOSURE BY EMPLOYER OF INFORMATION REGARDING
                            CERTAIN EMPLOYEES OR FORMER EMPLOYEES



                            § 103.001. PURPOSE; LEGISLATIVE FINDING. The
                            legislature finds that the disclosure by an employer of truthful
                            information regarding a current or former employee protects
                            employment relationships and benefits the public welfare. It is
                            the intent of the legislature that an employer who makes a
                            disclosure based on information obtained by the employer that any
                            employer would reasonably believe to be true should be immune from
                            civil liability for that disclosure.

                            Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 240, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.


                            § 103.002. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
                            (1) "Employee" means a person who performs services
                            for an employer, whether or not for compensation.
                            (2) "Employer" means a person who has one or more
                            employees or other individuals who perform services under a
                            contract of hire or service, whether expressed or implied, or oral
                            or written.
                            (3) "Job performance" means the manner in which an
                            employee performs a position of employment and includes an analysis
                            of the employee's attendance at work, attitudes, effort, knowledge,
                            behaviors, and skills.
                            (4) "Prospective employee" means any person who has
                            made an application, either oral or written, or has sent a resume or
                            other correspondence indicating an interest in employment.
                            (5) "Prospective employer" means an employer to whom a
                            prospective employee has made an application, either oral or
                            written, or sent a resume or other correspondence expressing an
                            interest in employment.

                            Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 240, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.


                            § 103.003. AUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE; APPLICATION TO CERTAIN
                            EMPLOYEES. (a) An employer may disclose information about a
                            current or former employee's job performance to a prospective
                            employer of the current or former employee on the request of the
                            prospective employer or the employee.
                            (b) An employer may not disclose information about a
                            licensed nurse or licensed vocational nurse that relates to conduct
                            that is protected under Section 301.352 or 303.005, Occupations
                            Code. The employer must provide an affected nurse an opportunity to
                            submit a statement of reasonable length to the employer to
                            establish the application of Section 301.352 or 303.005,
                            Occupations Code.

                            Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 240, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.
                            Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1420, § 14.818, eff. Sept.
                            1, 2001.


                            § 103.004. IMMUNITY FROM CIVIL LIABILITY; EMPLOYER
                            REPRESENTATIVES. (a) An employer who discloses information about
                            a current or former employee under Section 103.003 is immune from
                            civil liability for that disclosure or any damages proximately
                            caused by that disclosure unless it is proven by clear and
                            convincing evidence that the information disclosed was known by
                            that employer to be false at the time the disclosure was made or
                            that the disclosure was made with malice or in reckless disregard
                            for the truth or falsity of the information disclosed. For purposes
                            of this subsection, "known" means actual knowledge based on
                            information relating to the employee, including any information
                            maintained in a file by the employer on that employee.
                            (b) This chapter applies to a managerial employee or other
                            representative of the employer who is authorized to provide and who
                            provides information in accordance with this chapter in the same
                            manner that it applies to an employer.

                            Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 240, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.


                            § 103.005. EMPLOYMENT REFERENCE. This chapter does not
                            require an employer to provide an employment reference to or about a
                            current or former employee.

                            Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 240, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.


                            Disclaimer: These codes may not be the most recent version. Texas may have more current or accurate information. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or the information linked to on the state site. Please check official sources."

                            Comment


                              #44
                              So in short, in Texas, as long as the information given isn't false, they can tell a person calling anything they want and they are protected from civil liability. I too was under the impression that it was against the law, guess I was wrong.

                              Edit: I looked up the 2013 version, it says the same thing.
                              Last edited by Daniel75; 02-09-2013, 12:27 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X