Wells Fargo Employee Fired over 40yr old ShopLifting charge

[Doodah]

So a person who was charged with Possession of Alcohol by Person Under 21 could never be employed by your agency or access NLETS (in Texas) if the crime occurred 15 years ago?

No. Possession of alcohol by person under 21 is not an offense involving dishonesty or breach of trust or money laundering. From one of the links posted earlier (http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/5000-1300.html):

 

5000 - Statements of Policy

 

FDIC STATEMENT OF POLICY FOR SECTION 19 OF THE FDI ACT

 

Section 19 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1829) prohibits, without the prior written consent of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), a person convicted of any criminal offense involving dishonesty or breach of trust or money laundering (covered offenses), or who has agreed to enter into a pretrial diversion or similar program in connection with a prosecution for such offense, from becoming or continuing as an institution-affiliated party, owning or controlling, directly or indirectly an insured depository institution (insured institution), or otherwise participating, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of the insured institution.

I'm aware it doesn't qualify. It was more of a question to angel.

[angeleyeskkhr]

So a person who was charged with Possession of Alcohol by Person Under 21 could never be employed by your agency or access NLETS (in Texas) if the crime occurred 15 years ago?

 

I believe MIP is a Class C.

 

And now if it was Purchase/Furnish Alcohol to a minor, no my employer would not hire the person.

[cinderella]

I think the bigger issue is why people are being fired for committing certain crimes decades ago. I don't advocate criminal activity, but I hardly think committing a misdeameanor many years ago, bars someone from being able to perform their job properly. If I discover a conviction, it depends on the severity of the crime and how long ago it happened, as to whether or not it may disqualify them from employment. IMO, being fired for committing shoplifting 40 years ago, is silly.

 

I have to agree with that. It does seem rather dumb. I think they ought to have like a 10 year limit on it.....15 at the absolute max.

 

Banks have a lot of confidential and private information on their customers. I wouldn't put my money where shoplifters were hired or once discovered, allowed to continue employment.

 

Depending on the situation, an employee may be able to access tax returns, credit reports, loan applications which request a lot of private information including detailing other asset accounts not with that particular bank including account numbers, social security numbers, date of birth, employment history and more.

 

ID Theft isn't too far of a stretch from shoplifting. I don't think a person with a history of shoplifting regardless of time of occurence should have access to the private information as above. I wouldn't feel comfortable if an employee with a record of shoplifting had access to my private information. Financial institutions have an obligation to protect your information, hiring a shoplifter, IMHO, puts my personal information at risk more so than a person without a history of stealing.

 

FYI...My employer does FBI background checks. I **think** it over your life, not just 10 years. I do know one financial institution that does 10 year checks. I have a misdemeanor for reckless driving as teen, but I always disclose it prior to application. If I didn't and it was discovered, it is possible I could be denied employment for not disclosing it and they discovered it. In my line of work, if you apply to a new positions, even a promotion to a new position, a background check will be redone.

Edited May 12, 2012 by cinderella

[cinderella]

I don't need to reconsider my answer. The only people who can access NCIC (and state CIC's) have to be certified, have to have a need to know, and be a part of the law enforcement community. Police officers can't even access NCIC, it has to go through someone who is certified.

 

A person found accessing NCIC databases without a need to know can be arrested. People who are NCIC certified who abuse the system to, say, look up a neighbor or old boyfriend are also subject to termination and arrest.

 

All NCIC terminals have ORIs. If a request comes through that is not through an ORI terminal, the request is denied.

 

Now would you like to explain how the general public can pay to access this information?

No one said general public until you. I'm a LEO, and I have NCIC/FCIC access... I have never been arrested but I know for a FACT an associate has a prior misdemeanor arrest, and she has NCIC/FCIC access.

 

You have a right to access your FBI background check for $18. I believe they use NCIC, not that I'm any aficianado on background checks.

[visorboy1974]

FYI...My employer does FBI background checks. I **think** it over your life, not just 10 years. I do know one financial institution that does 10 year checks. I have a misdemeanor for reckless driving as teen, but I always disclose it prior to application. If I didn't and it was discovered, it is possible I could be denied employment for not disclosing it and they discovered it. In my line of work, if you apply to a new positions, even a promotion to a new position, a background check will be redone.

 

Ouch...that's strict. May I ask what line of work you're in?

[sirrowan]

http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/5000-1300.html

 

http://www.forc.org/pdfs/vol14-ed2-art5.pdf

Sounds like according to this:

(5) De minimis Offenses. Approval is automatically granted and an application will not be required where the covered offense is considered de minimis, because it meets all of the following criteria:

 

• There is only one conviction or program entry of record for a covered offense;

 

• The offense was punishable by imprisonment for a term of one year or less and/or a fine of $1,000 or less, and the individual did not serve time in jail;

 

• The conviction or program was entered at least five years prior to the date an application would otherwise be required; and

 

• The offense did not involve an insured depository institution or insured credit union.

 

A conviction or program entry of record based on the writing of a “bad” or insufficient funds check(s) shall be considered a de minimis offense under this provision even if it involved an insured depository institution or insured credit union if the following applies:

 

• All other requirements of the de minimis offense provisions are met;

 

• The aggregate total face value of the bad or insufficient funds check(s) cited in the conviction was $1000 or less; and

 

• No insured depository institution or insured credit union was a payee on any of the bad or insufficient funds checks that were the basis of the conviction.

 

Any person who meets the foregoing criteria shall be covered by a fidelity bond to the same extent as others in similar positions, and shall disclose the presence of the conviction or program entry to all insured institutions in the affairs of which he or she intends to participate.

 

She would have been fine?

She should have been fine. Some people are just really petty. I recall someone who became the HR Director where my mom used to work. There was a janitor who had worked there for YEARS. Apparantly, they did some digging and he had an undisclosed B&E or some such conviction from when he was like 19. She was calling all her lil' minions and they were discussing this over the phone IN PUBLIC. I was sitting there waiting for her to say his name. I would have thrown that beyotch under the bus in a heart beat.

[sirrowan]

FYI...My employer does FBI background checks. I **think** it over your life, not just 10 years. I do know one financial institution that does 10 year checks. I have a misdemeanor for reckless driving as teen, but I always disclose it prior to application. If I didn't and it was discovered, it is possible I could be denied employment for not disclosing it and they discovered it. In my line of work, if you apply to a new positions, even a promotion to a new position, a background check will be redone.

 

Ouch...that's strict. May I ask what line of work you're in?

[beli]

http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/5000-1300.html

 

http://www.forc.org/pdfs/vol14-ed2-art5.pdf

Sounds like according to this:

(5) De minimis Offenses. Approval is automatically granted and an application will not be required where the covered offense is considered de minimis, because it meets all of the following criteria:

 

• There is only one conviction or program entry of record for a covered offense;

 

• The offense was punishable by imprisonment for a term of one year or less and/or a fine of $1,000 or less, and the individual did not serve time in jail;

 

• The conviction or program was entered at least five years prior to the date an application would otherwise be required; and

 

• The offense did not involve an insured depository institution or insured credit union.

 

A conviction or program entry of record based on the writing of a “bad” or insufficient funds check(s) shall be considered a de minimis offense under this provision even if it involved an insured depository institution or insured credit union if the following applies:

 

• All other requirements of the de minimis offense provisions are met;

 

• The aggregate total face value of the bad or insufficient funds check(s) cited in the conviction was $1000 or less; and

 

• No insured depository institution or insured credit union was a payee on any of the bad or insufficient funds checks that were the basis of the conviction.

 

Any person who meets the foregoing criteria shall be covered by a fidelity bond to the same extent as others in similar positions, and shall disclose the presence of the conviction or program entry to all insured institutions in the affairs of which he or she intends to participate.

 

She would have been fine?

She should have been fine. Some people are just really petty. I recall someone who became the HR Director where my mom used to work. There was a janitor who had worked there for YEARS. Apparantly, they did some digging and he had an undisclosed B&E or some such conviction from when he was like 19. She was calling all her lil' minions and they were discussing this over the phone IN PUBLIC. I was sitting there waiting for her to say his name. I would have thrown that beyotch under the bus in a heart beat.

 

While it was one incident there was two convictions I believe from the article(from the shoplifting incident) since she was never convicted on the incident from 2001. However, they were well over 5yrs old, so I would assume that nicks the first one that it would have to have been one conviction. I can almost guarantee that if something like this were to happen to higher ups they would be filing that waiver in a heartbeat. I bet they were looking for a way to downsize and this was the way to go without actually "laying" off a bunch of people... wouldn't put it past them for one second.

 

As to the HR Director

Edited May 14, 2012 by beli

[sirrowan]

http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/5000-1300.html

 

http://www.forc.org/pdfs/vol14-ed2-art5.pdf

Sounds like according to this:

(5) De minimis Offenses. Approval is automatically granted and an application will not be required where the covered offense is considered de minimis, because it meets all of the following criteria:

 

• There is only one conviction or program entry of record for a covered offense;

 

• The offense was punishable by imprisonment for a term of one year or less and/or a fine of $1,000 or less, and the individual did not serve time in jail;

 

• The conviction or program was entered at least five years prior to the date an application would otherwise be required; and

 

• The offense did not involve an insured depository institution or insured credit union.

 

A conviction or program entry of record based on the writing of a “bad” or insufficient funds check(s) shall be considered a de minimis offense under this provision even if it involved an insured depository institution or insured credit union if the following applies:

 

• All other requirements of the de minimis offense provisions are met;

 

• The aggregate total face value of the bad or insufficient funds check(s) cited in the conviction was $1000 or less; and

 

• No insured depository institution or insured credit union was a payee on any of the bad or insufficient funds checks that were the basis of the conviction.

 

Any person who meets the foregoing criteria shall be covered by a fidelity bond to the same extent as others in similar positions, and shall disclose the presence of the conviction or program entry to all insured institutions in the affairs of which he or she intends to participate.

 

She would have been fine?

She should have been fine. Some people are just really petty. I recall someone who became the HR Director where my mom used to work. There was a janitor who had worked there for YEARS. Apparantly, they did some digging and he had an undisclosed B&E or some such conviction from when he was like 19. She was calling all her lil' minions and they were discussing this over the phone IN PUBLIC. I was sitting there waiting for her to say his name. I would have thrown that beyotch under the bus in a heart beat.

 

While it was one incident there was two convictions I believe from the article(from the shoplifting incident) since she was never convicted on the incident from 2001. However, they were well over 5yrs old, so I would assume that nicks the first one that it would have to have been one conviction. I can almost guarantee that if something like this were to happen to higher ups they would be filing that waiver in a heartbeat. I bet they were looking for a way to downsize and this was the way to go without actually "laying" off a bunch of people... wouldn't put it past them for one second.

 

As to the HR Director

Yeah there are places that I know of that will fire someone over something that is so ridiculous, but in the end, they've been there a long time, are at the top of the pay scale, and there's someone else out there that will do their job for MUCH less.