SHOULD HE STAY OR SHOULD HE GO…?
Yahoo confirmed Friday that its newish chief executive officer Scott Thompson does not in fact have the computer science degree that he claimed he has and the Yahoo board has since launched an investigation into how the discrepancy came about.
Thompson’s biography and Yahoo filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission both report that Thompson has degrees in accounting AND computer science. But Dan Loeb, whose company ThirdPoint owns 5.8 percent of Yahoo shares called the computer science degree into question in a scathing letter to the company’s board last Thursday.
“A rudimentary Google search reveals a Stonehill College alumni announcement stating that Mr. Thompson’s degree is in accounting only. That announcement is consistent with other documents (including SEC filings) that reflect Mr. Thompson received a degree in accounting, but not computer science,” Loeb wrote in the letter.
After first calling the discrepancy an “inadvertent error” and backing Mr. Thompson as a “highly qualified executive with a successful track record” leading large technology businesses, the Yahoo! board has started an investigation. “Upon completion of its review,” the company said in a statement, the board “will make an appropriate disclosure to shareholders.”
Loeb has called for the firing of Thompson for unethical conduct, and has threatened to file a lawsuit if the board doesn’t take “swift and decisive action” by noon on Monday.
According to a report from Business Insider, Thompson’s alleged fake degree has shown up on biographies of the executive as far back as 2008, though it never appeared on SEC filings for PayPal. Yahoo has since removed references to Thompson’s computer science degree from his official Yahoo biographies.
“If Mr. Thompson embellished his academic credentials we think that it 1) undermines his credibility as a technology expert and 2) reflects poorly on the character of the CEO who has been tasked with leading Yahoo! at this critical juncture,” Loeb wrote. “In the event that there is no good explanation, we expect the Board to take immediate action.”
This is not the first time a chief executive’s qualifications have been questioned. Lotus chief executive Jeff Papows resigned in 2000 in part because of a claimed PhD from Pepperdine University which was bogus. Marilee Jones admitted that she had fabricated her own educational credentials, and resigned after nearly three decades at M.I.T. It was revealed that Ms. Jones did not have even an undergraduate degree. And RadioShack chief executive David J. Edmondson also resigned in 2006 after questions were raised about the accuracy of his résumé.
As of today at noon, no word from Yahoo…
UPDATE: Scott Thompson resigned…
EX-TECH PROFESSOR ADMITS LYING OVER EMPLOYMENT
A former Georgia Tech professor will serve five years’ probation after he pleaded guilty to lying about being under contract with both the Atlanta university and the University of Minnesota simultaneously.
Authorities say Francois Sainfort was sentenced Monday in Fulton County. Sainfort and his wife, Julie Jacko, were charged a year ago with conspiracy to defraud, theft by taking and making false statements.
Authorities said the duo was double-billing the universities, and that Sainfort sent an email to Georgia Tech officials in February 2008 lying about whether he and Jacko had signed a contract with Minnesota, where they are currently employed. The charges against Jacko were dismissed. Sainfort paid $43,578 in restitution.
Their attorney, Martin Goldberg, did not return a call for comment. Georgia Tech officials declined comment.
To read more, visit: http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/ex-tech-professor-admits-1429442.html
EEOC CRIMINAL HISTORY GUIDANCE PASSED
The EEOC Criminal History Guidance just passed by a 4-1 vote. Mega Group Online will update you as more information regarding this guidance becomes available.
SHODDY BACKGROUND CHECK COULD COST YOU A JOB
Apply for a job and there’s a good chance that potential employer will do a background check on you. Most U.S. employers (about 70 percent) conduct criminal background checks for all potential employees. According to a new report from the National Consumer Law Center, the information provided by background screening companies is often wrong in some way.
“These reports really should be accurate. Unfortunately, too often, what we found is, they’re not,” says Persis Yu, an NCLC staff attorney who worked on the “Broken Records” report.
Take the case of Samuel M. Jackson of Illinois, profiled in the report. Jackson was allegedly denied a job because of an inaccurate background check that said he was convicted of rape in 1987 – when he was just 4 years old. The conviction belonged to 58-year-old Samuel L. Jackson of Virginia, who was in prison at the time the background check was requested.
Virtually anyone with a computer and Internet service can go into the business of background screening. There is very little, if any, oversight.
“It’s really the Wild West out there,” Persis says. “They’re not required to be licensed. They’re not required to be registered. And yet they’re generating billions of dollars in revenue with very little accountability.”
The head of the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS) says the NCLC report makes some very broad statements that are not accurate. In an email statement to msnbc.com, Theresa Preg says background screening through Consumer Reporting Agencies (CRA), such as those that are members of NAPBS have “a very, very low error rate.”
Preg says members of her organization are highly regulated at the state and federal level. She warns employers not to use “free” criminal record searches offered via the Internet because they have no updating requirement and therefore can have inaccurate information.
“The member companies of NAPBS help put millions of people to work, including ex-offenders,” she writes. “We also help consumers correct misinformation that may be contained on them at the actual courts or law enforcement agencies, as well as any incorrect criminal history information that may have been contained in a consumer report.
In preparing its report, NCLC contacted attorneys and community groups that work with people who are hurt by faulty background checks. They say these reports routinely mismatch people. This can be devastating when a person with no criminal background is confused with someone who has a criminal history. Such mix-ups are more likely if you have a common name.
“People are being denied employment because these companies are returning reports about the wrong person,” Persis says.
Background reports also commonly:
- Omit crucial information about a case. For example: A person is arrested, but then found innocent.
- Reveal sealed or expunged information, such as a juvenile offense.
- Provide misleading information, such as a single charge listed multiple times.
- Misclassify offenses, such as reporting a misdemeanor as a felony.
Even if you’re lucky enough to catch a mistake in a background check, it’s not always easy to get the error corrected.
“Many of these companies don’t have very clear dispute processes,” Persis says. “Depending on the state and how the company got their records, it can take weeks or a month or more even to actually get the information corrected. By that time, a lot of times, the job is gone.”
The National Consumer Law Center wants the federal government to clean up the marketplace by creating rules that would ensure complete and accurate information. NCLC believes data providers should be registered, required to update their records each year and prohibited from making matches based solely on a person’s name.
Mega Group Online is a proud member of the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS), is accredited by the Better Business Bureau, is a member of ConcernedCRAs.com, and abides by SafeHarbor Regulations.
To read more, visit: http://lifeinc.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/13/11166181-shoddy-background-check-could-cost-you-a-job?lite
EEOC EXPECTED TO RELEASE NEW GUIDANCE ON APRIL 25
On April 25, 2012, the EEOC will hold a meeting to vote on new guidance regarding the use of criminal arrest and conviction records in employment. The current EEOC guidance (1987 EEOC Policy Statement on the Issue of Conviction Records under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/convict1.html) on this matter requires employers to take into consideration the following to demonstrate business necessity in regards to use of criminal records for employment:
- the nature and gravity of the offense(s);
- time that has passed since the conviction and/or completion of the sentence; and
- the nature of the job held or sought.
In 1990 the EEOC issued a statement regarding the use of arrest records for employment stating that the employer must consider (i) the likelihood that the individual engaged in the conduct arrested for; and (ii) job relatedness.
In 2008 a meeting was held by the EEOC to revisit the guidance issued in 1987 and 1990. This time the focus turned to employment discrimination against individuals with arrest and conviction records. Shortly after this meeting, the E-RACE Initiative went into full effect.
In July 2011, the EEOC revisited the issue brought about in the 2008 meeting. At this meeting the EEOC contemplated issuing new guidance of the use of arrest and conviction records for employment. This new guidance is expected to be released on April 25.
Mega Group Online will keep you updated and informed on this topic as more information becomes available. Please feel free to contact MGO with any questions you may have.
Drug Testing Isn’t Always Legal at Work
Pre-employment drug testing is a common condition for a job offer. But once an employee is hired, when is it legal to ask for a drug test at work?
State laws often limit the situations in which an employer can conduct drug testing of current employees. In general, they include situations in which safety is an issue, or when an employer suspects an employee of illegal drug use. In all cases, an employer should have a written drug-testing policy.
Here are three scenarios in which drug testing at work is generally legal:
1. The job requires it, or poses safety risks.
State and federal regulations require workers in certain professions, like airline pilots and commercial truck drivers, to submit to random drug testing during employment.
Jobs with inherent safety risks, like the operation of heavy machinery, may also call for random or periodic drug testing, as specified in a written policy. But some states like California prohibit most types of random drug testing. You may want to check with a local employment attorney to see what the laws are where you live.
2. An employer has “reasonable suspicion” that an employee is using illegal drugs.
“Reasonable suspicion” may include physical evidence, like drugs in an employee’s locker, or an employee’s behavior, such as slurred speech or lapses in work performance. Drug tests at work based on “reasonable suspicion” are generally upheld when an employer’s suspicion is legitimate, and the testing follows an employer’s established written policy.
3. After an employee accident, or an employee’s participation in a drug rehab program.
Post-accident drug testing may be allowed, if an employer had reason to suspect drug use led to the employee’s accident. Employees enrolled in, or who have completed, a drug rehab program may also be tested. However, these drug tests must fall in line with an employer’s written policy, and an employer must consistently follow the policy — or risk getting the drug test tossed out in court.
Employers who want to keep drug testing at work as an option may want to have employees sign-off on the policy to show they understand it. Consulting an employment lawyer will also help ensure your drug testing policy conforms to the law.
To read more, visit: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/13/tagblogsfindlawcom2012-freeenterprise-idUS311799169520120313
SAFER ONLINE DATING
Online dating is getting a little bit safer now that three major sites, Match.com, eHarmony and Spark Networks (the operator of JDate and Christian Mingle) have agreed to join forces with California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris to protect members by running background checks on prospective subscribers.
While some of the dating sites have already implemented screening of prospective members, this announcement is the first joint effort with law enforcement and Attorney General Harris is encouraging other dating sites to implement similar policies.
The participating sites will now check subscribers against national sex offender registries; anyone who is a registered sex offender will be barred from the online dating services. The sites will also be screening for violence and identity theft as well as checking the accuracy on client applications. Any criminal information gathered from the dating sites will be provided to the Attorney General’s office.
The sites will also increase their online safety tools with “rapid abuse reporting systems,” which will give members access to a website, email address and/or phone number to report suspected criminal activity. Further implementations include online dating safety education, guidance for fraud prevention and instruction on how to meet people safely offline.
The increased use of online dating sites has also brought an increase in financial scams and even physical abuse. A Match.com client sued last year, saying she was raped on a date with a repeat sex offender she had met through the site. The alleged attacker had at least six prior sex offense convictions.
In 2011, 40 million Americans used an online dating service and more than $1 billion was spent on online dating website memberships. Of couples married in the last three years, one in six met through an online dating service and one in five people have dated someone they met through an online dating site.
“Consumers should be able to use websites without the fear of being scammed or targeted,” said Attorney General Harris. ”It is a priority for this office to ensure consumers are protected online, and companies who are creating in the Internet space have a continued opportunity to innovate and thrive.”
While these measures are promising, not every would-be sex offender can be screened out. Common sense is paramount, and safe online dating tips include using the online dating services email system, meeting in public places and letting friends know vital information about the person you are meeting.
WILL BOY SCOUTS’ FILES EXPOSE “CULTURE OF HIDDEN SEX ABUSE?”
A judge in Santa Barbara, CA has ordered the Boy Scouts of America to hand over the last 20 years’ worth of confidential files, detailing allegations of sexual abuse by Scout leaders around the nation.
Historically, Scout officials have resisted releasing the estimated 5,000 files, which have been kept since the 1920’s and are known as “ineligible volunteer files.” The Scouts haven’t discussed the file contents either, citing the privacy rights of victims and the fact that many files are based on unproven allegations. Scout officials further deny that the files have been used to conceal sexual abuse.
According to Deron Smith, public relations director for Boy Scouts of America “These files exist solely to keep out individuals whose actions are inconsistent with the standards of Scouting, and Scouts are safer because of them.”
But in a negligence lawsuit brought against the Scouts by the family of a California boy molested by his Boy Scout troop leader in 2007, the boy’s lawyers contend these files will expose the Scouts’ “culture of hidden sexual abuse” and its failure to warn about pedophiles in the ranks of one of the nation’s oldest youth organizations. ”They have created these ticking time bombs who are walking through society, and nobody knows their identities except the Scouts,” said Timothy Hale, one of the lawyers for the Santa Barbara County boy.
The lawsuit contends that the Boy Scouts knew, or should have known that Al Stein, a volunteer troop leader who had a history of inappropriate behavior with children and had put the unnamed victim boy at risk. The suit further alleges that the Scouts asked the victim’s mother not to call the police following her son’s claim of abuse, stating that the Scouts conduct their own “internal investigation.” Lawyers for the family say this is evidence of the Scout’s efforts to conceal widespread sexual abuse.
In 2008, Stein was charged with committing a lewd act upon a child and two child pornography charges for photographs he took of a boy. In 2009, Stein pleaded no contest and was put on probation. Authorities later found pictures of nude children on Stein’s cell phone and he was sentenced to two years in prison, but was paroled early. According to Stein’s attorney, Stein is currently living in a motel with other sex offenders.
The trial is set for April in Santa Barbara County.
Stay Connected with
Mega Me
 |
 |