Language in a background check release form – what’s reasonable, and what is… less so?

August 12, 2009 6:30 AM

Language in a background check release form – what’s reasonable, and what is… less so?

I work in healthcare. My employer of the last nine years does an annual background check of our criminal records. This year, the CEO has chosen to use a company that will check records nationwide (rather than just here in Washington state). The release form they’re asking us to sign includes the following language:

“(I, the undersigned)… authorize any duly authorized agent of (background-check company) to obtain, whether the records are public or private, and including those which may be deemed to be privileged or confidential in nature and I release all persons from liability on account of such disclosures.”

The CEO has released a memo stating that they’re only looking for criminal records, and that the language included is standard in release forms. I don’t doubt our company’s intent, but I also feel as if I’d be leaving myself open to whatever fishing expedition into my past the background-check company decided to undertake themselves. I have nothing to hide, but I don’t care to sign off on a fishing license, either.

I know that you are not a lawyer; if you are a lawyer, I know that you are not my lawyer. Having said that: am I just being paranoid, or is that a reasonable point of contention? Is this really common language in such release forms?

posted by bmarkey to work & money (5 comments total)

IANAL, thank god, but I have read and amended a billion contracts. Maybe a billion and twelve.

It sure sounds like your permission here could give any employee of the background check company a license to do pretty much anything, including things that would be illegal without your permission, such as requesting your ISP records, bank records, tax records and so on. Imagine them waving around this authorization.

Does it even have a specific time period during which any of these employees can request any private information of yours of any kind? Seems very broad from your description, and yes, a bit disturbingly so.

I'd strike the word 'private' and sign it as is.
posted by rokusan at 6:36 AM on August 12

Yeah, strike out everything about them accessing private, priviledged or confidential in nature and give it back to your HR people. If they kick up a stink, take it to your CEO and tell them the language in this disclaimer is way, way too broad.
posted by Happy Dave at 7:23 AM on August 12

Could this also be used to access confidential health-information? Juvenile records? It's not like you are seeking a security clearance. For what it's worth, I've signed about 6 of these in the past 15 months and none of them have been this broad.
posted by mrmojoflying at 10:08 AM on August 12

Ooops, I meant to add that the nation-wide check thing is standard, just not the "all records" portion.
posted by mrmojoflying at 10:10 AM on August 12

I've stricken (struck?) out the access to private, priveledged or confidential info. Thanks, everybody.
posted by bmarkey at 10:16 AM on August 12