Subscribe to LexTalk to stay on top of today’s legal issue and trends.
Catapult Your Career |
Industry Insights & Trends |
Product Training & Tips
What is more troubling to you: the applicant who lies on a resume, or an applicant who discloses a criminal history on resume? Resume lies are more of a deal breaker for employers than past crimes as reported in the article via the LexisNexis® Legal Newsroom | Labor and Employment Law blog.
According to a recent survey conducted by background-screening company EmployeeScreenIQ,of the 600 HR professionals surveyed 45 percent said that they routinely ding candidates with a criminal history on their resume, while a whopping 90 percent refuse to hire some for whom a resume lie is discovered.
Two years ago, when the EEOC announced its Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records, I expressed reservations over regulatory guidance that limited the ability of employers to use criminal histories as a disqualifying factor for certain classes of jobs. I still believe that individuals with certain criminal histories should not hold certain jobs. For example, I remain steadfast that I cannot foresee a situation where a company would ever hire a convicted murderer or sex offender as a delivery person.
I would never hire anyone who lies during the hiring process. The most important trait in hiring anyone for a job is honesty. If the bond of honest breaks down between employer and employee, the breakdown of the employment relationship will quickly follow. While not all criminal convictions depict an individual as dishonest, all resume lies do. The fact that this survey shows that double the number of employers refuse to hire candidates with resumes lies versus those who truthfully reveal past crimes does not surprise me in the least.
Readers, what say you? Would you rather hire a liar or a criminal? What is more troubling to you: the applicant who lies on a resume, or an applicant who discloses a criminal history on resume?