Fair Background Screening: Why Applicant Rights, Accuracy and Second Chances Matter

Background checks serve an important purpose.

Employers need to protect their employees, customers, patients, clients, property and organizations. But I believe the person being screened deserves protection too.

That belief is one of the reasons I helped build Global Background Screening.

I've spent over 2 decades in the background screening industry, and one thing has always bothered me:

The idea that a "better" background check is simply the one that returns the most information.

I don't believe that.

I believe a good background check should return the right information. Meaning, information that is accurate, appropriately verified, legally reportable and relevant to the purpose of the search.

Because there is a real person behind every background report.

Someone may have made a mistake years ago. A charge may have been dismissed. A record may belong to another person with a similar name. A case someone believed was expunged may still appear in a court system. Information may simply be inaccurate.

And sometimes, people deserve a second chance.

Criminal justice reform, applicant rights and fair-chance principles matter to me personally. Those beliefs have also influenced how we approach screening at Global Background Screening.

An Arrest Is Not a Conviction

This distinction is extremely important.

Being arrested does not establish that someone committed a crime.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has specifically distinguished between arrests and convictions in its guidance on the use of arrest and conviction records in employment decisions.

Yet criminal records are complicated.

Court systems can contain arrests, charges, amended charges, dismissals, convictions and other dispositions. Records may be incomplete or outdated. Names can be entered incorrectly. A database may not immediately reflect a later court action.

Simply sending everything a database finds to an employer is not what I consider responsible background screening.

At GBS, the objective isn't to produce the longest report possible.

Our objective is to produce an accurate, appropriately scoped and legally reportable report.

For standard criminal background checks, we generally focus on reportable convictions and pending criminal matters, subject to applicable federal, state and local requirements.

There can be jurisdictions, industries, purposes and legally permissible situations in which other information may be reportable (like when working with the Elderly and Children). But our philosophy is simple:

Information shouldn't be included just because someone managed to find it in a database.

That protects applicants.

It can protect employers too by reducing the risk of decisions being made from inaccurate, outdated, prohibited or misleading information.

Why GBS Defaults to Seven Years

One policy I feel strongly about is our standard seven-year screening scope.

Global Background Screening generally defaults standard employment background screening to a seven-year criminal history period, with an optional 10-year scope where legally permissible and appropriate.

That is intentional.

Federal law does not create a universal seven-year limit on criminal convictions. Certain other adverse information is subject to federal reporting limitations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, while convictions are treated differently. State and local laws, like in California and Virgina may impose additional limitations.

You can review the federal reporting provisions in 15 U.S.C. § 1681c.

Our seven-year default therefore isn't simply about doing the maximum that federal law permits.

It reflects a larger question:

How far into someone's past does an employer really need to look?

Twenty years?

Thirty years?

Forever?

There are positions where older history may legitimately be relevant. Certain regulated positions, safety-sensitive jobs or work involving vulnerable populations may warrant additional scrutiny, and specific laws may establish different requirements.

But there are also situations where something that happened many years ago has very little relationship to the individual applying for a job today.

I don't believe the purpose of background screening should be to punish someone indefinitely.

The purpose should be to help an organization evaluate legitimate risk.

Better Information, Not More Information

One of the philosophies I want Global Background Screening to represent is:

The goal should be better information—not simply more information.

A criminal record alone doesn't automatically answer whether someone should be hired.

The EEOC has encouraged employers assessing criminal history to consider factors that include the nature and seriousness of an offense, the amount of time that has passed and the nature of the position.

That makes sense.

An old offense may have little relationship to one job and significant relevance to another.

Our responsibility as a consumer reporting agency is to provide accurate information so employers can make informed decisions consistent with their policies and applicable law.

Global Background Screening is the independent company in the middle.

We don't make the hiring decision.

We don't decide whether someone is a good person.

We don't determine whether someone deserves a second chance.

We gather, verify, review and report information according to the screening service requested and the applicable legal requirements.

The employer makes the employment decision.

That separation matters.

Applicants Should Be Able to Dispute Inaccurate Information

Accuracy is one of the most important responsibilities of a consumer reporting agency.

If Global Background Screening reports something about you and you believe it is inaccurate, incomplete or belongs to somebody else, we want you to tell us.

Consumers have important rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, including rights relating to obtaining their information and disputing information they believe is inaccurate.

That's why we maintain a dedicated Applicant Report Requests & Disputes process.

Applicants screened through GBS can contact us to request their report, initiate a dispute and provide supporting documentation when appropriate.

We don't view a dispute as an inconvenience.

It is part of the process.

If information is wrong, the individual deserves an opportunity to challenge it and the consumer reporting agency has a responsibility to investigate according to applicable law.

Why Adverse Action Matters

Another important safeguard in employment background screening is the adverse action process.

When an employer is considering an adverse employment decision based in whole or in part on information contained in a consumer report, federal law establishes specific procedures.

The Federal Trade Commission provides a useful overview in its guidance, Background Checks: What Employers Need to Know.

Before certain adverse employment actions are finalized, an applicant generally receives a copy of the background report and information about their FCRA rights.

That opportunity matters.

Imagine losing a job because a criminal record belonging to someone with a similar name was associated with you.

Or because a court record still shows a matter as pending even though it was dismissed.

Or because a record you believed had been sealed or expunged continues to appear somewhere.

A person should have an opportunity to say:

"This isn't correct."

Global Background Screening provides adverse action tools and guidance designed to help clients manage this process.

Federal requirements are only part of the picture. State and local jurisdictions can impose additional requirements, waiting periods, notices or individualized-assessment obligations.

But the underlying principle is one I strongly support:

Before a background report changes someone's life, that person should have a meaningful opportunity to review the information being used.

Technology Should Improve Accuracy, Not Eliminate Human Responsibility

I'm a technology person.

I believe strongly in automation, artificial intelligence and using technology to make background screening faster, more accessible and easier to understand.

But I do not believe technology should eliminate human responsibility.

Technology can help locate information, organize results, identify potential matches and process large amounts of data efficiently.

But context matters.

A computer may identify a potential criminal record.

Someone still needs to determine whether we have the correct individual.

Was the date of birth verified?

Does the middle name match?

Was the charge later dismissed?

Was the disposition updated?

Does the record belong to someone else?

Is the information reportable for this particular purpose and jurisdiction?

That's why human review remains an important part of our screening process where applicable.

Technology should help people make better decisions.

It shouldn't become an excuse to stop checking the work.

Responsible Social Media Screening Should Respect Privacy

The same philosophy applies to social media background checks.

There is a significant difference between reviewing publicly available online activity and invading someone's private life.

Global Background Screening's social media screening analyzes publicly available information.

• We do not ask applicants for their passwords.

• We do not hack accounts.

• We do not bypass privacy settings to access private profiles.

If someone's content is private, it is private.

Public social media screening can still have a legitimate role in risk management, particularly when evaluating publicly visible conduct relevant to an organization's legitimate concerns.

But it should be performed responsibly.

Human review is important here too.

Two people can have the same name.

A profile photo can be misleading.

A post can lack context.

An automated system shouldn't be allowed to decide that something belongs to an applicant simply because an algorithm thinks it might.

The same philosophy applies:

Use technology to assist the investigation, but don't remove accountability from the process.

Sometimes You Should Run a Background Check on Yourself

Background screening shouldn't only be something that happens to you.

People should have an opportunity to understand information associated with their own identity and history.

That is why Global Background Screening allows individuals to order a personal background check on themselves.

There are many reasons someone may want to do this.

Maybe you had a criminal case years ago and believed your attorney had it sealed or expunged.

Maybe you want to confirm the court actually updated the record.

Perhaps a civil case appears under your name that you don't recognize.

Maybe someone used your identity.

Maybe you're about to apply for an important position and simply want to understand what information might appear.

Or maybe you want to review your own public social media history.

People have been posting online for decades.

Facebook launched in 2004.

You may not remember what you posted 10 or 15 years ago.

A social media self-screen may help you understand what remains publicly associated with you today.

That doesn't mean every legitimate record or old post can simply disappear.

But knowing what's there gives you an opportunity to investigate it, gather documentation, dispute inaccuracies where appropriate and prepare to explain legitimate information if necessary.

Background screening shouldn't only give organizations information. It can give individuals information too.

Criminal Justice Reform and Background Screening Are Not Opposites

I strongly believe in criminal justice reform.

I also co-founded a background screening company.

Those positions might sound contradictory.

I don't believe they are.

Supporting criminal justice reform doesn't mean employers should ignore legitimate safety concerns.

And conducting background checks shouldn't mean anyone who has ever made a mistake is permanently excluded from employment, housing or opportunity.

There is a responsible middle ground.

Verify records.

Respect privacy.

Report information accurately.

Follow applicable reporting restrictions.

Give applicants an opportunity to dispute inaccurate information.

Recognize the difference between an arrest and a conviction.

Consider whether a particular record is actually relevant to the position.

Use technology responsibly.

And recognize that people can change.

Employers deserve tools that help them protect their organizations.

Applicants deserve a process that treats them fairly.

We can do both.

Fair Screening Protects Employers Too

Applicant rights aren't only good for applicants.

Responsible screening protects employers.

Companies make serious decisions based on background reports.

A bad report can result in a bad decision.

Inaccurate records, improper reporting, inconsistent screening procedures and mishandled adverse action can create unnecessary risk for an organization.

Providing an employer with information they should not have received doesn't make that employer safer.

It may expose them to additional problems.

That's why we continue investing in background screening compliance, technology, human review and applicant dispute processes.

The objective isn't to prevent employers from learning about legitimate risk.

It's to make sure the information they receive is as accurate, relevant and appropriately reported as possible.

There Is a Person Behind Every Background Check

It's easy to look at a screening dashboard and see names, dates, case numbers and alerts.

But behind every report is a person.

Someone looking for a job.

Someone trying to rent an apartment.

Someone supporting a family.

Someone trying to move forward.

Someone who may have made a mistake.

Someone who may have been wrongly accused.

And sometimes someone whose background report is simply wrong.

I want Global Background Screening to remember that.

Our responsibility isn't to punish applicants.

Our responsibility is to help employers and organizations obtain accurate, relevant and legally reportable information while respecting the rights of the individual being screened.

We can protect businesses.

We can protect applicants.

We can embrace technology.

We can support second chances.

We can do all of those things at the same time.

That's the kind of background screening company I wanted to help build.

And that's the kind of company I want Global Background Screening to continue becoming.

About Carlos Crameri

Carlos Crameri is Co-Founder and Chief Technology & Marketing Officer of Global Background Screening. With more than 18 years of experience in background screening, technology, compliance, and business operations, Carlos has focused his career on making screening more accurate, accessible, and fair for both employers and applicants.

He is a strong advocate for applicant rights, responsible use of public-record information, fair-chance hiring, and criminal justice reform. His approach to background screening emphasizes accuracy over unnecessary information, human review alongside technology, meaningful dispute rights, and giving individuals the opportunity to understand and correct information associated with their own records.

At Global Background Screening, Carlos helps lead the company's technology, product development, compliance strategy, international screening capabilities, and digital growth.

Outside of work, Carlos is a father of three — Charlie, Jack, and Ryan — and a lifelong music fan. He enjoys playing guitar, listening to heavy metal, spending time with his family, and continuously learning about technology, business, and the world around him.