Microsoft rescinded a job offer after a background check

In the 2009 edition of the New Jersey eAuthority, news about Schley v. Microsoft Corp. box. Microsoft apparently revoked their job offer in writing to a candidate after failing a background check. According to the story, Microsoft sent the plaintiff a letter telling him that he was being offered a job with the company. However, he mentioned in the letter that the offer is only effective if he is cleared after the background check. He probably missed that part because of all the excitement, because he ended up not only jobless, but also homeless. It appears that he went to talk to the hiring manager who, perhaps just trying to be friendly, suggested that he quit his job, sell his house, and move from New Jersey to Washington, to prepare for the position, which he did at once. instant. . But she was later told that he failed the admission for the job after it was learned that he had a criminal record.

This incident is a serious example of not only what jumping to conclusions could do, but also what the result of a criminal background check could cause. Although the story might have sounded so negative due to the job deprivation for said claimant, it must be remembered that the letter was written at some point with good intentions. It even included the conditions on the job offered. Almost all establishments in the state, especially large ones, require not only a criminal background check for their employees and applicants, but also a thorough background search in general. These background checks cover everything from previous employment history, to significant license and credit records, and much more. These prerequisites are necessary for the company to assess the ability, attitude, assets, and behavior of a candidate or employee.

In most cases, the earlier incident could have taken a different route if at some point the plaintiff had disclosed the felony conviction prior to the job offer. This information could be useful in finding ways to contradict a company’s removal because if they had known earlier, say during an interview or something, they would have no reason to be surprised after the conviction showed up during the background check. However, if such information was not disclosed, then the applicant is really at fault. Basically because he should have known the effects of a felony charge on an individual’s record. This type of information is a terrible subject that is case sensitive and should be brought to the attention of the hiring committee immediately for clarification if it will influence the processing of your application. When you’ve done all this, at least you have the guarantee that when they ask you for a background check, they’ll know at some point what to expect from it. And that the information you shared with them, after they heard it, would no longer bother them or get in the way of your application. If, and only if, they would still consider the process after you have informed them of the condition of your background record.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *