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.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Sanguine Dream, May 9th, 2007 @ 9:53pm

    ...


    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Makarot, May 10th, 2007 @ 7:17am

      Re: ...

      I've heard so much about this recently.

      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?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Verum, May 9th, 2007 @ 10:24pm

    Nobody should be fired because of their past. If someone is doing a great job now, I don't care if they murdered someone in the past, that's what the idea of reform is all about.

    "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..."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      ejohnson, May 14th, 2007 @ 3:49pm

      Re:

      That is the dumbest thing I've ever read. Most people who committ crimes are repeat offenders. I certainly want to know if I'm working with someone with a history of violence.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        kathy, Dec 16th, 2007 @ 4:58pm

        Re: Re:

        What if the person is convicted of a violent crime, when the real perpetrator is still out there??? I was a battered woman. I was convicted of assaulting him when I was actually defending myself. He is still out there.

        And no, people, do not repeat their offenses.

        You are a very judging and critical person.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Pikey Dan, Jan 30th, 2008 @ 7:43am

      Re: Verum

      We are all losing our privacy and rights everyday - wake up and speak up.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    fuck dorpus, May 10th, 2007 @ 5:24am

    ...or...

    Do what I do. My "name" online is not my "legal" name. My legal name, in fact, is one of the most common names on the planet (first AND last, go me!) so by having a unique online name, I know how to find MYSELF any time I want, but people like employers and stalkers have no idea how to even begin given how commonplace my legal name is.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 10th, 2007 @ 5:38am

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    JustMatt, May 10th, 2007 @ 7:12am

    Re: Verum

    That isn't what happened here and that isn't the issue at hand.

    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.).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      makarot, May 10th, 2007 @ 7:20am

      Re: Re: Verum

      The important thing is to check your sources, I think.

      I mean, it's the internet.
      Any fool can seem credible.
      Even me.

      I'm a Doctor.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    K, May 10th, 2007 @ 11:07pm

    Just like...

    Reminds me of the time the boss of my former company, who periodically Googled the company name to see if anyone was talking about it, stumbled upon the LiveJournal of a guy who mentioned his interview, but who used an RPG name for his journal name. While I explained that it's very common for people to use handles online, the HR person insisted "I wouldn't hire someone like that". I didn't, of course, tell them of my own online handles.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Charles Griswold, May 13th, 2007 @ 4:30pm

      Re: Just like...

      While I explained that it's very common for people to use handles online, the HR person insisted "I wouldn't hire someone like that". I didn't, of course, tell them of my own online handles.

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    ronald, May 29th, 2007 @ 1:57am

    not all backgrounds are the same

    not everyone thats read in backgrounds are realy that person. example my name when typed up in intelius.com commenly known as peoplefor will show you all your familys names when you type your own. but when you continue there are other names there that are not your family and other areas whe you live so your paying for information that belongs to both you and another entire family.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Lorraine, Aug 15th, 2007 @ 5:20am

    I think its a crock

    I personally think that employers should be able to perform a background check on a potential employee. However, I do not feel that anyone out there in cyberspace should be able to purchase the same information. What has happened to our rights to privacy. What if you don't want an EX to find you? Anyone can find anybody now a days. I think its dangerous and an invasion of privacy. Not everyone needs to know everyone else's business. I seriously wonder why people aren't getting more upset about this. Now are cell phone numbers are being published on Intelius.com. What next?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Daryl, Sep 23rd, 2008 @ 8:44am

    It's going to get to the point where people are fired or not hired merely for posting political viewpoints that are considered out of the mainstream, and that is such hypocrisy considering how far this country has gone to protect the rights of minorities. Libertarians, communists, fascists, etc, will be fired just for rejecting the ruling order. Republicans will fire Democrats and vice versa.

    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.,

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Daryl, Sep 23rd, 2008 @ 1:33pm

    The worst thing is that the people at google have the slows. They make it nearly impossible to remove anything and require you to gain the support of the webmaster. What if the webmaster dislikes you and refuses, as any average Joe can make a website? Then google should step in and purge the info. Yahoo is willing to do this. Google is not.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This