I'll admit up front i screwed up and got in trouble with my previous employer. Got wrote up, went before the big boss man, admitted what i did and denide what i didnt do. well he didn't believe me so he terminated my employment, but before i left his office he gave me the option to turn in my letter of resignation. Well obviously thats what I did....

Well......Four months later still can't get anyone to hire me.
I'm almost positive that all the people that I interview with call my last job and are being told things about me that they shouldn't be told.

I'm under the impression that all they can tell is that I did work their and that i resigned. (they cant bad mouth me or anything like that)+(HR department "1guy" didn't like me to much any who)

What can I do.....talked to Attornies office they said if i get them on tape bad mouthing me then I can do something......this aint right got a infant to take care of and they are acting like i killed someone :eek:

>all i did was fall asleep on the job after excepting to pull a double< :(

You are 100% incorrect.

Despite a persistant belief to the contrary, there is NO law in ANY state that says an employer can only give dates of employment and rehire status (or whatever permutation you've heard). An employer may LEGALLY give any information that is true, that they have a reasonable and supportable belief is true, or represents their honest opinion. If you fell asleep on the job it is LEGAL for them to say so.

If you can PROVE that they are LYING about you, that's one thing. But if they are telling the truth or giving their honest opinion, even if it is negative, that's their right. FYI, in Oklahoma (and a great many states) the employer is immune from liability unless the information is false and the employer either knew it was false or didn't care whether it was true or false.

Actually you are wrong, In CALIFORNIA... it is illegal to give out any negative information infact it is illegal unless the person who had quit, or was let go signs or tells the employer it is ok with the person to release other information. I know this because i was let go of a job about 4 years ago and while i have called and asked about myself pretending to be an prespective employer i was shocked to find out that they only are allowed to give the following information:
The date they were hired and ended, the pay range they were last at, they do not volunteer this information you have to have the questions and they will answer them. I tried to get them to answer the question of "Would you rehire?" and she said that they are unable to answer that question if she (meaning me) would like to give them a call or fax over a request for them to release more information after they recieve it it will be completely up to me to release the information.

California, is one state that may be screwed up in alot of ways but, It is nice in a lot of other ways because, it is ILLEGAL for them to volunteer information that is not asked. They also during interviews can not ask about Day care, childcare or if you have reliable childcare. If you are volunteering it then therefore it is o.k. but for them to ask any questions such as about your children, and marriage.

Just thought you should know. I moved from california to oklahoma that is why i know about california.

Jamie :) :)


You are 100% incorrect.

Despite a persistant belief to the contrary, there is NO law in ANY state that says an employer can only give dates of employment and rehire status (or whatever permutation you've heard). An employer may LEGALLY give any information that is true, that they have a reasonable and supportable belief is true, or represents their honest opinion. If you fell asleep on the job it is LEGAL for them to say so.

If you can PROVE that they are LYING about you, that's one thing. But if they are telling the truth or giving their honest opinion, even if it is negative, that's their right. FYI, in Oklahoma (and a great many states) the employer is immune from liability unless the information is false and the employer either knew it was false or didn't care whether it was true or false.

Please cite and provide a link for this law as I am unaware of it and you might be only partially correct.

I think what you saw was a law that only requires an employer to give the info you state but does not forbid them from giving more. In other words its the minimum they can give. If the law was as you state (still waiting for link) then references would be obsolete and, companies would no longer ask for them. I too am in CA and often see request for references. I recall a former employer send all calls for past employees to a 800 number that only gave how long they worked for us etc. Again though I thin your confused about law and it does not forbid employers from giving negative info when asked about thier experience with you as an employee

Actually you are wrong, In CALIFORNIA... it is illegal to give out any negative information infact it is illegal unless the person who had quit, or was let go signs or tells the employer it is ok with the person to release other information. I know this because i was let go of a job about 4 years ago and while i have called and asked about myself pretending to be an prespective employer i was shocked to find out that they only are allowed to give the following information:
The date they were hired and ended, the pay range they were last at, they do not volunteer this information you have to have the questions and they will answer them. I tried to get them to answer the question of "Would you rehire?" and she said that they are unable to answer that question if she (meaning me) would like to give them a call or fax over a request for them to release more information after they recieve it it will be completely up to me to release the information.

California, is one state that may be screwed up in alot of ways but, It is nice in a lot of other ways because, it is ILLEGAL for them to volunteer information that is not asked. They also during interviews can not ask about Day care, childcare or if you have reliable childcare. If you are volunteering it then therefore it is o.k. but for them to ask any questions such as about your children, and marriage.

Just thought you should know. I moved from california to oklahoma that is why i know about california.

Jamie :) :) That was SO nice of you to respond to a post that is 1 1/2 years old to tell a labor law expert that she's wrong.

Jamie:

If you are right, we would really like an actual reference that can be verified. The problem is that CA is the biggest state in the country, it's law and rules tend to be very well reported, and you are stating "facts" that none of us have heard of. If this was say Utah, then anything is possible. But most of us have done this type of work with CA employees. We read books, subscribe to magazines, and take classes. I have not read the entire Callifornia Labor Code in it's entirity, but I have read a lot of it (plus the Wage Orders, plus a lot of opinion letters issued by CA-DLSE), and what you said (if true) is news to me. You might notice that a lot of the answers on this website include actual references so that the OP can verify the answer themselves.

You really cannot expect people to change course from otherwise well established rules absent a source that can be verified.

Also, as mentioned this was a very old thread. It is extremely unlikely that the OP is still checking it to see if the answer has changed.

Actually California Civil Code Section 47(c) protects employers from defamation suits as a result of providing honest, even if unfavorable, employment references.

I'm eagerly waiting jwilson's response.

Wow Moburkes ! I hate to see you in such suspense here you go Buddie Holton v. Lockheed corp Ca Sup Ct No. 642082 (1991)
California Jury awarded a fired employee $1 million because his former employer provided defamatory job references to to prospective employers causing emotional distress.
If that dont sway you try these:
See, for example, Adler v American Standard Corp. (1982, DC Md) 538 F Supp 572;
Houston B. & T. R. Co. v Wherry (1976, Tex Civ App Houston (1st Dist)) 548 SW2d 743, writ ref n r e, cert den and app dismd (1977) 434 US 962, 54 L Ed 2d 447, 98 S Ct 497.
Cancellier v Federated Dept. Stores (1982, CA9 Cal) 672 F2d 1312, 28 BNA FEP Cas 1151, 115 BNA LRRM 4111, 28 CCH EPD ¶32639, 29 CCH EPD ¶32878, cert den (1982) 459 US 859, 74 L Ed 2d 113, 103 S Ct 131, 31 BNA FEP Cas 704, 30 CCH EPD ¶33063.
Hannon Engineering, Inc. v Strom Industries, Inc. (1981, 2d Dist) 126 Cal App
3d 415, 179 Cal Rptr 78.
Source
45 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 2d 249
JoeC;)

Wow Moburkes ! I hate to see you in such suspense here you go Buddie Holton v. Lockheed corp Ca Sup Ct No. 642082 (1991)
California Jury awarded a fired employee $1 million because his former employer provided defamatory job references to to prospective employers causing emotional distress.
If that dont sway you try these:

Source
45 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 2d 249
JoeC;)

So, how many lawsuits were dismissed because of the law that Elle qouted? More than 4?

But, obviously one lawsuit works right? Someone asked for someone to post and of course someone did....does it matter how many were dismissed? A case was cited...BLAM....employee wins:D

Joec, great case too btw.

So, how many lawsuits were dismissed because of the law that Elle qouted? More than 4?

What you want me to do Ells research,and yours? Sorry I'm not defense council for the employer.
JoeC

This is a Civil case (I Presume) its not a law! the OP stated there was Ca law that forbid telling a potential employer anything outside of yes he/she worked here ,how long and how much they earned. Where I did not read the link I am guessing its more a defamination case that violation of State law. What I orignally asked for and have yet to see is the CA law OP seems believe exist forbidding employers from giving any info outside of what I just mentioned.

But, obviously one lawsuit works right? Someone asked for someone to post and of course someone did....does it matter how many were dismissed? A case was cited...BLAM....employee wins:D

Joec, great case too btw.

No, not really. I was speaking to jwilson. I asked why he posted on a one year old thread, and I wanted him/her to back up what he said.

I'll review the cites to see if they deal with the issue that Elle posted, or if they were won on some other merit.

In any case, lawsuits are won all the time that are outside of the laws. Or, could that have only happened with the 4 cases that Joe cited?
:rolleyes:

But, I do appreciate what Joe cited. I'm not sure why it was "okay" to try to "prove me wrong", but unacceptable for me to ask a follow up question about what he posted. That doesn't make sense to me.

This is a Civil case (I Presume) its not a law! the OP stated there was Ca law that forbid telling a potential employer anything outside of yes he/she worked here ,how long and how much they earned. Where I did not read the link I am guessing its more a defamination case that violation of State law. What I orignally asked for and have yet to see is the CA law OP seems believe exist forbidding employers from giving any info outside of what I just mentioned.

Gosh, at least someone understands.:)

cool! Glad someone else understands too.:D

This is a Civil case (I Presume) its not a law! the OP stated there was Ca law that forbid telling a potential employer anything outside of yes he/she worked here ,how long and how much they earned. Where I did not read the link I am guessing its more a defamination case that violation of State law. What I orignally asked for and have yet to see is the CA law OP seems believe exist forbidding employers from giving any info outside of what I just mentioned.
Its called tort law with common law remedies,not everything is codified. The O.P is correct if a defamatory remark is made by a previous employer, gives rise to litigation with common law remedies (I.E back pay front pay,punitive damages etc). (If the remark causes damages). The answer is not in the Ca labor code.
Any action even wrongfully termination tittle VII etc,etc is a Civil case,you want to look in the criminal code? If thats the case you will never find the employer at fault unless the employer starts,maiming,and shooting employees or any other criminal violation.
JoeC

Ok here we go again. OP states ther eis a CA law (failed to be cited) that does not allow negative comments from former employers.

cool! Glad someone else understands too.:D

Go blue.:D

Ok here we go again. OP states ther eis a CA law (failed to be cited) that does not allow negative comments from former employers.

Stop being ridiculous what courts say about the law is every bit if not more important than whats codified,and lay interpretations. To understand a little better read the posts written by one of the board attorneys. http://www.laborlawtalk.com/showthread.php?p=923458#post923458
JoeC

For the record, all of these were before the law I cited was passed, which was in 1994. I also am not disputing that if the employer out and out lies there may be a cause for legal action, but employers are not held to name, rank and serial number out of fear of a defamation claim, simply because they gave a truthful but unflattering reference.

Randi W. v. Muroc Joint Unified School Dist., 929 P.2d 582 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 1997), was a CA case where the employer was actually held liable for NOT providing a negative reference or at least negative information it was aware of in a reference. Just providing a nuetral or positive reference is not a guarantee that your company is on safe ground.

I wasnt trying to start an argument i was just simply stating what i have known in the fairly recent, I wasnt trying to say you were wrong, but i was just simply letting you know that in california it is against the law for them to ask questions in the interview about anything other than your employment, It is not suppose to be about anything else, also i was not trying to say anything that you were wrong just simply stating that when i pretended to be a employer calling to verify information on an old employee the HR dept. manager told me that she could not answer the questions of if i was re-hireable or not as that was not allowed unless i released them to say other wise. I believe that in some ways that can be devastating in its self just because, that could be taken as a "no" when the answer may very well be Yes.

I wasnt trying to start an argument i was just simply stating what i have known in the fairly recent, I wasnt trying to say you were wrong, but i was just simply letting you know that in california it is against the law for them to ask questions in the interview about anything other than your employment, It is not suppose to be about anything else, also i was not trying to say anything that you were wrong just simply stating that when i pretended to be a employer calling to verify information on an old employee the HR dept. manager told me that she could not answer the questions of if i was re-hireable or not as that was not allowed unless i released them to say other wise. I believe that in some ways that can be devastating in its self just because, that could be taken as a "no" when the answer may very well be Yes.

Okay. Are you now saying that the questions are illegal in the INTERVIEW, but not during the background check? Who speaks to the previous employer during the inerview?

I don't know of a question that is asked during the background check that wouldn't be about their employment history.

The manager that you're referring to has the common misconception that they cannot answer certain questions. Like I said, that is a misconception, even in CA. Now, having said that, it may have been that company's POLICY not to answer certain questions, but that is just a POLICY, not a law.

... i was just simply letting you know that in california it is against the law for them to ask questions in the interview about anything other than your employment ...

May I ask exactly which law it is against? If something is really against the law, and I am not saying you are wrong, then there has to be an actual law that people can look up the rules in. How do you know this is against the law?

For example, if someone asked my why California employers are required to pay their employees any unused vacation upon termination, I can say:

California Labor Code Section 227.3
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html.):

"Unless otherwise provided by a collective-bargaining agreement, whenever a contract of employment or employer policy provides for paid vacations, and an employee is terminated without having taken off his vested vacation time, all vested vacation shall be paid to him as wages at his final rate in accordance with such contract of employment or employer policy respecting eligibility or time served; provided, however, that an employment contract or employer policy shall not provide for forfeiture of vested vacation time upon termination. The Labor Commissioner or a designated representative, in the resolution of any dispute with regard to vested vacation time, shall apply the principles of equity and fairness."

It does not always work like that DAW. California Labor Code Section 2922. An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

Obviously there are all kind of exceptions to the above law in Ca. However if its the only thing ever weighed by a jury,there would never be a single wrongful termination suite ever won in California. That definitely is not the case.
JoeC

It does not always work like that DAW.

Obviously there are all kind of exceptions to the above law in Ca. However if its the only thing ever weighed by a jury,there would never be a single wrongful termination suite ever won in California. That definitely is not the case.
JoeC

Joe, sometimes I have a hard time understanding what you're saying in relation to the topic of the post. And, I AM trying to do so. DAW was simply giving jwilson an example of how to post a cite to back up his claim. Nothing was said about wrongful termination. So, I don't get what you're saying about wrongful termination in response to a defamation case for providing accuate information for a background check.

However in this case, there is no public policy nor law, nor even best practice that would prevent an employer from asking either the reference or the candidate questions which do not directly relate to their past employment experience in either an interview or during the course of a background check. Now obviously there are some questions which should not be asked, or at least not used a part of the selection process, but that is far different than saying you can not ask anything except job related questions.

There is also no law that requires a candidates written permission to release certain information in a reference check, nor share whether or not the candidate is eleigible for rehire. That may be a company practice but it is not a law.

May I ask exactly which law it is against? I am not a laywer nor am i taking law classes so sorry i can not answer the question of what exact law it is against. But i do know that when i was attending schooling for medical front office and i had a class on Interviewing and what questions were the proper questions it was a "CAREER" Class and it taught you what questions were right and what were wrong it had a whole list. For example: Why would you like to work for this company? (or) Tell me about yourself?
Those were questions that were alright to answer, on the other hand questions such as:
Are you Married? Do you have any Children? How many? Do you have proper Day Care? Or do you have DayCare for them?
Those Questions were IMPROPER to answer, that was my point earlier, My OTHER point was that. While a perspective employer is calling and doing a background employment history, it is not acceptable that the ex-employer Volunteer any information about you that was not asked. Such as " If the question was not asked of "IS she/he rehireable" then they are not to volunteer they are to just answer the questions that are asked. Just like in an interview you do not volunteer any information that is not needing to be known. You dont tell a perspective employer about other job offers UNLESS... you are playing hard to get but word to the wise.... you may want to be careful because its Liable to bite you.

:)
If something is really against the law, and I am not saying you are wrong, then there has to be an actual law that people can look up the rules in. How do you know this is against the law?

For example, if someone asked my why California employers are required to pay their employees any unused vacation upon termination, I can say:

California Labor Code Section 227.3
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html.):

"Unless otherwise provided by a collective-bargaining agreement, whenever a contract of employment or employer policy provides for paid vacations, and an employee is terminated without having taken off his vested vacation time, all vested vacation shall be paid to him as wages at his final rate in accordance with such contract of employment or employer policy respecting eligibility or time served; provided, however, that an employment contract or employer policy shall not provide for forfeiture of vested vacation time upon termination. The Labor Commissioner or a designated representative, in the resolution of any dispute with regard to vested vacation time, shall apply the principles of equity and fairness."[/QUOTE]

Joe, sometimes I have a hard time understanding what you're saying in relation to the topic of the post. And, I AM trying to do so. DAW was simply giving jwilson an example of how to post a cite to back up his claim. Nothing was said about wrongful termination. So, I don't get what you're saying about wrongful termination in response to a defamation case for providing accuate information for a background check.
Wrongful termination,and 2922 is an analogy to point out that a law does not have to be codified to give rise to litigation.
Just as there is no law that says an employer may not be liable for a bad reference,as you can see in law a case can be framed successfully to overcome that.
Similarly just as the at-will presumption is codified,wrongful termination,have been litigated ,and won despite the code.
JoeC

[QUOTE=ElleMD;923626]
ElleMD and Everybody,

I was just trying to state a simple statement that i was told by an actual employer , also my aunt who has worked for the state of california and owns her own businesses, has told me on many occasions that is not legal for them to ask certain questions also i have found a website that proves what questions are legal and which arent. I was just trying to simply state a fact NOT START A WAR !!!!:mad:

The websites : www.usfca.edu/fac-staff/bell/article18.html
employment.findlaw.com/articles/2446.html -
Those two were for california


Now for Oklahoma:
www.worktree.com/newsletter/illegal-interview-questions.html
www.usatoday.com/careers/resources/interviewillegal.htm

Sincerely,

Jwilson05

May I ask exactly which law it is against? I am not a laywer nor am i taking law classes so sorry i can not answer the question of what exact law it is against. But i do know that when i was attending schooling for medical front office and i had a class on Interviewing and what questions were the proper questions it was a "CAREER" Class and it taught you what questions were right and what were wrong it had a whole list. For example: Why would you like to work for this company? (or) Tell me about yourself?
Those were questions that were alright to answer, on the other hand questions such as:
Are you Married? Do you have any Children? How many? Do you have proper Day Care? Or do you have DayCare for them?
Those Questions were IMPROPER to answer, that was my point earlier, My OTHER point was that. While a perspective employer is calling and doing a background employment history, it is not acceptable that the ex-employer Volunteer any information about you that was not asked. Such as " If the question was not asked of "IS she/he rehireable" then they are not to volunteer they are to just answer the questions that are asked. Just like in an interview you do not volunteer any information that is not needing to be known. You dont tell a perspective employer about other job offers UNLESS... you are playing hard to get but word to the wise.... you may want to be careful because its Liable to bite you.


][/QUOTE]


You are still mentioning things that are either company policies or best practices, not laws. No law states that you can not ask if a candidate has children. If you only ask this of female employees, then if gives credence to a later claim that you discriminated against female applicants. If you happen to live in one of the few states that bans employment discrimination on the basis of parental status the same could be true as well but the law does not provide a remedy simply because one of these questions was asked. It is only the information obtained from such questions may not be used as part of the decision making process. Obviously if you never ask, and don't know, it wasn't a factor. But if the subject comes up, or there is a legitimate reason to mention the topic (such as on-site day care being a benefit) it isn't breaking any laws.

Okay, cutting through the irrevelant information:

Jwilson, you still have not provided a law, either statutory or case, that prohibits negative references that are true or represents the employer's honest opinion. No one is saying that defamatory references are acceptable or legal; clearly they are not. But it is not true in any state that employers are limited to dates of employment etc. If you have information to the contrary, please post it.

You are also confusing what is inadvisable with what is illegal.

Wrongful termination,and 2922 is an analogy to point out that a law does not have to be codified to give rise to litigation.
Just as there is no law that says an employer may not be liable for a bad reference,as you can see in law a case can be framed successfully to overcome that.
Similarly just as the at-will presumption is codified,wrongful termination,have been litigated ,and won despite the code.
JoeC

Joe, I appreciate the explanation, and, maybe I'm just dense about it, but I still don't understand. If there is no law, as you stated, that then what is there to overcome?

In regards to the at-will part, there is ALWAYS going to be an exception to every LAW. ALWAYS.

May I ask exactly which law it is against? I am not a laywer nor am i taking law classes so sorry i can not answer the question of what exact law it is against. But i do know that when i was attending schooling for medical front office and i had a class on Interviewing and what questions were the proper questions it was a "CAREER" Class and it taught you what questions were right and what were wrong it had a whole list. For example: Why would you like to work for this company? (or) Tell me about yourself?
Those were questions that were alright to answer, on the other hand questions such as:
Are you Married? Do you have any Children? How many? Do you have proper Day Care? Or do you have DayCare for them?
Those Questions were IMPROPER to answer, that was my point earlier, My OTHER point was that. While a perspective employer is calling and doing a background employment history, it is not acceptable that the ex-employer Volunteer any information about you that was not asked. Such as " If the question was not asked of "IS she/he rehireable" then they are not to volunteer they are to just answer the questions that are asked. Just like in an interview you do not volunteer any information that is not needing to be known. You dont tell a perspective employer about other job offers UNLESS... you are playing hard to get but word to the wise.... you may want to be careful because its Liable to bite you.

What you have cited are best practices, not the law. Certain questions should be avoided in interviews, not because it is illegal to ask them, but because the information that they would elicit could be used to discriminate. For that reason, interviewers are advised not to ask them. If a woman is asked whether she has children and then doesn't get the job, the employer would have a hard time defending itself against a discrimination claim even if the reason she didn't get the job was that she was not the best qualified application.

Another best practice, when providing a reference, is to only answer the questions asked and not to volunteer additional information. If someone just starts gabbing away, they could potentially say something that could potentially be defamatory. Out of fear of litigation, many companies will tell employees to only answer the questions put to them by the caller.

After a "brief" search I have found no CA law that prohibits negative replies to calls from potential employers. Ther eis however many companies that forbid any reposnse other than "yes he/she worked here" "from dates to date", "he/she made $$$ an hour" If that were true then application would not ask for references nor would they ask if they could contact former employers. So I think OP was confused by statements given about what could and could not be done.

Marketeer is right about best practices my company only answers what the employees job was how long he was employed,and if they would hire him/her again I know Citicorp does the same. Neither of thees are small operations.
JoeC

I understand where they're coming from. My dad wouldn't allow his employees to answer anything other than dates. 2 insurance companies that I worked for would answer all questions. Both are HUGE billion dollar companies, but, I'm going to guess neither is as large as Citi.

However, the fact remains that an employer, of whatever size, CAN choose to answer questions other than dates of employment etc., and that doing so is legal in all 50 states.

True but the prospective employer that checks the references and the former employer that supply information, are subject to potential liability if the exchange of information illegally harms the job applicant. This may arise under several common law principals, such as defamation, the right of privacy, and most important interference with prospective economic advantage.
This places considerable limitations on the information shared if the former employees terminated the employee for adverse conditions.
JoeC

Just as there is liability in not sharing adverse information. There i no one sure fire way to eliminate liability in giving or receiving references. Most states do have laws that protect the employer giving the reference, but they are not absolute.

Also, the operative word is ILLEGALLY harms the applicant. If a prospective employer asks me whether Gene's attendance was good, and Gene was late three days out of five and had six unexcused absences in as many months; if I provide these documented and true facts and Gene does not get the job, I have not ILLEGALLY harmed him. If Gene sues me I will win.

On the other hand if I volunteer information about Sarah's workers comp claim and imply, untruthfully, that Sarah is an unreliable worker, and as a result Sarah does not get a job based on inaccurate and untrue information that I had no business revealing, then Sarah can win a subsequent lawsuit and I deserve to be sued.