Author Archives: (CRC)

  • 0
Board Room

Broward Health’s Interim CEO Making $650,000 Annually Discovered to Hold a Master’s Degree from a Diploma Mill.

Broward Health’s Interim CEO Making $650,000 Annually Discovered to Hold a Master’s Degree from a Diploma Mill.

The new CEO for Broward Health obtained a master’s degree in health administration from a defunct institution, Kennedy-Western University. Her degree was identified as originating from a diploma mill during the education verification portion of her background check.

Diploma Mills are organizations that are not accredited by the U.S. Department of Education and claim to be a higher education institution, but they offer illegitimate academic degrees and diplomas for a fee. NAPBS accredited background screening agencies are required to conduct education verifications to ensure that diploma mills are identified, and as an NAPBS accredited firm, CRC can help ensure that your hiring requirements are met! Click the link below for the full article!

Please reach out to CRC’s Customer Care Group if you have any questions about how our Education Verification services can help you verify your candidate’s education claims!

  • 0
NC Flag

NC Senate Bill 445 aims to ease expungements and raise the age of prosecution

Easier expungements and more are soon to be a reality in North Carolina with the signing of Senate Bill 445: CRC Has the Details!

Senate Bill 445 was signed by Gov. Roy Cooper last Friday providing individuals with easier access to expungements for non-violent records and will raise the minimum age of prosecution for non-violent offenses from 16 to 18. The law will go into effect on December 1st. Follow the link below for more information regarding this story.

Please reach out to CRC’s Customer Care Group if you have any questions about how this new bill will affect your background screening results!


  • 0
NC Flag

Ban the Box Legislation for State Government Hiring Clears NC House Committee

Excerpted from, by Colin Campbell 

Legislation to help people with criminal records get state government jobs is advancing in the N.C. House.

House Bill 409 unanimously passed the House State Personnel Committee Wednesday and is similar to “ban the box” proposals. It would ban state agencies from asking about an applicant’s criminal record until the person has received an interview.

The requirement wouldn’t apply to private companies, and it wouldn’t apply to law enforcement jobs or positions that “involve direct interaction with minors or the elderly.”

“This gives the opportunity for people to interview the person who’s applying for the job before they discount them,” said Rep. Rena Turner, the Iredell County Republican who sponsored the bill with three other Republicans. “If they have the qualifications for that job, then they need to have the opportunity to be employed. This does not deny anyone the ability to do a record check after they’ve had that initial interview.”

You can read the full article HERE

  • 0
CRC Sign - Rex Hospital Open

CRC to sponsor Practice Putting Green – Rex Hospital Open

We are excited to sponsor the Practice Putting Green at the 30th annual Rex Hospital Open. This year’s Open will be held from June 1- June 4, 2017 at the beautiful course at TPC Wakefield Plantation. If you are interested in Champion’s Club tickets courtesy of CRC, please reach out to Dorian Dehnel. We look forward to seeing everyone there!

Click on the following site for more information about the tournament

  • 0
SHRM17_Logo for Exhibitors

SHRM 17 Annual Conference – New Orleans

Tags :

We will be exhibiting at the SHRM17 Annual Conference and Exposition in New Orleans from June 18 to June 21. Be sure to stop by Booth #249 to learn how (CRC) takes the Stress Out of Background Checks.  If you are stressed out and frustrated with long turnaround times, unresponsive customer service or inaccurate reporting, you will not want to miss this chance to speak with us.  While you are at our booth, don’t forget to enter into our Daily Drawing or pick up a stress-relief gift.

We’ve partnered with SHRM to offer our customers a special discount for a limited time, save $200 on a full conference registration when you register with code ANN17EXPOSAVE. Click here to download your Complimentary Expo Pass.  

Follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn for Conference Updates, Announcements of the Winners of our Daily Drawings and the latest news in the Background Screening Industry.  Hope to see you there!


  • 0
NHRMC Gala - Jan 28 17

New Hanover Regional Medical Center Founders’ Gala 2017

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 the Founders’ Gala kicked off the social season at the Air Wilmington Hanger at ILM Airport. This event featured epicurean delights from top chefs around Wilmington and live music. The Founders’ Gala raises money each year to support the Betty H. Cameron Women’s and Children’s Hospital at New Hanover Regional Medical Center. This year, more than 600 supporters of NHRMC including physicians, care partners, corporate business partners, community leaders, and our own VP of Business Development, Dorian Dehnel, with his wife, Shelley Mitchell, were all in attendance.


  • 0


Article originally posted by

Financial regulators are forcing two of the largest employment background screening companies to pay $12.5 million in fines and relief payments for allegedly reporting inaccurate information about job applicants.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) said General Information Services and its affiliate, Inc. (BGC), unlawfully included civil suit and civil judgment information from more than seven years ago in reports they provided to prospective employers.

“General Information Services and its affiliate failed to take basic steps to provide accurate background screening reports to employers about job applicants,” CFPB Director Richard Cordray said in a news release. “Today, we are holding two of the largest companies in this market accountable for cleaning up the quality of their reports.”

The agency has ordered the companies to correct their practices, pay a $2.5 million civil penalty and $10.5 million in relief to they victims. The CFPB said the reports potentially harmed applicants’ employment eligibility and reputations.

South Carolina-based GIS and its affiliate, BGC, based in Texas, collectively generate and sell more than 10 million consumer reports about job applicants to prospective employers annually. The CFPB said the reports include criminal history information and civil records, among other types of data, that’s used to determine the hiring eligibility of applicants and make other types of employment decisions.

The CFPB said the companies violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to employ reasonable procedures to assure the accuracy of the information contained in the reports.

  • 0


Article originally posted by

ORLANDO (Legal Newsline) – A Florida man is suing Waffle House claiming it unfairly used background checks and denied his employment application.

William Jones, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, has filed a class action lawsuit on Oct. 1 in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division against Waffle House Inc., WH Capital LLC, The Source for Public Data LP,, Shadowsoft Inc., Harlington-Straker Studio Inc., and Dale Bruce Stringfellow over claims of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

Jones alleges that in December 2014, he applied for employment at a Waffle House, who used PublicData to run a background check on him. According to the complaint, Waffle House denied Jones employment due to this background check, which plaintiff argues had inaccuracies. However, Jones argues that Waffle House did not provide proper disclosures prior to running a background check on him, did not provide him of a copy of his background report prior to taking adverse actions, did not provide a separate post-adverse notice to him, which all violated the FCRA.

Jones is seeking a trial by jury and is suing for statutory, compensatory, special, general, and punitive damages; court and attorney fees; and any other rewards deemed appropriate by the court. He is being represented by Michael J. Pascucci and Joshua H. Eggnatz of the law offices of Eggnatz, Lopatin, & Pascucci, LLP in Davie, Fla. and the offices of CounselOne PC in Beverly Hills, Calif.

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division case number 6:15-cv-01637-RBD-DAB

  • -


MORRISVILLE, N.C., SEPTEMBER 16, 2015 – The National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS®) Background Screening Credentialing Council (BSCC) announced today that (CRC) has successfully demonstrated compliance with the Background Screening Agency Accreditation Program (BSAAP) and will now be formally recognized as BSCC-Accredited.

“It is with great pride that (CRC) acknowledges its BSCC accreditation through NAPBS. CRC is committed to providing its clients background screening services that meet and exceed industry standards for legal compliance, data security, and consumer protection while maintaining the highest level of customer support and satisfaction. This accreditation provides confirmation of CRC’s commitment to upholding the highest standards and procedures in the industry.” – Dorian Dehnel, Vice President of Business Development

Each year, U.S. employers, organizations and governmental agencies request millions of consumer reports to assist with critical business decisions involving background screening. Background screening reports, which are categorized as consumer reports, are currently regulated at both the federal and state level.

Since its inception, NAPBS has maintained that there is a strong need for a singular, cohesive industry standard and, therefore, created the BSAAP. Governed by a strict professional standard of specified requirements and measurements, the BSAAP is becoming a widely recognized seal of achievement that brings national recognition to background screening organizations (also referred to as Consumer Reporting Agencies). This recognition will stand as the industry “seal,” representing a background screening organization’s commitment to excellence, accountability, high professional standards and continued institutional improvement.

The BSCC oversees the application process and is the governing accreditation body that validates the background screening organizations seeking accreditation meet or exceed a measurable standard of competence. To become accredited, consumer reporting agencies must pass a rigorous onsite audit, conducted by an independent auditing firm, of its policies and procedures as they relate to six critical areas: consumer protection, legal compliance, client education, product standards, service standards, and general business practices.
Any U.S.-based employment screening organization is eligible to apply for accreditation. A copy of the standard, the policies and procedures, and measurements is available at

About NAPBS®
Founded in 2003 as a not-for-profit trade association, the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS) represents the interests of more than 700 member companies around the world that offer tenant, employment and background screening. NAPBS provides relevant programs and training aimed at empowering members to better serve clients and maintain standards of excellence in the background screening industry, and presents a unified voice in the development of national, state and local regulations. For more information, visit

About (CRC)
Founded in 1999, CRC is HUB certified and a proud member of the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS) and the Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM). Located in Raleigh, North Carolina, CRC strives to provide straightforward and diligent employment screening solutions and background investigation services with honesty and integrity while maintaining the highest level of customer support and satisfaction. For more information, visit

  • 0


Attorneys: Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.Christopher M. CascinoMatthew Gagnon

On April 29, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC, No. 13-1019 (U.S. 2015), and concluded, in a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Kagan, that federal courts have the authority to review the EEOC’s conciliation efforts. In language that is sure to be repeated back to the EEOC for years to come, the Supreme Court held that “[a]bsent such review, the Commission’s compliance with the law would rest in the Commission’s hands alone.” This, the Supreme Court said, would be contrary to “the Court’s strong presumption in favor of judicial review of administrative action.”

While the Supreme Court did not rule that the intensive review that Mach Mining argued for was required, the case nevertheless represents a significant win for employers and resounding defeat for the EEOC. The EEOC will no longer be able to file suit against employers after paying mere lip-service to its conciliation efforts, and to give them the back of the hand in response to requests for fulsome information about liability and exposure in a threatened lawsuit. And employers will as a result be in a better position to settle meritorious claims on reasonable terms before the EEOC files suit, thus saving employers from unnecessary litigation expense.

Case Background

This ruling is a big case for employers and for government enforcement litigation. In a game-changing decision in December 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that an alleged failure to conciliate is not an affirmative defense to the merits of an employment discrimination suit brought by the EEOC. That decision had far-reaching, real world significance to the employment community because it meant that the EEOC was virtually immune from review in terms of the settlement positions it takes – often: “pay millions or we will sue and announce it in a media release.”

We have kept our blog readers up to date on this litigation as it wound through the lower courts and progressed at the Supreme Court. Readers can find the previous posts herehereherehereherehere, and here. In addition, Seyfarth filed an amicus brief supporting Mach Mining’s position, a copy of which can be found here. In essence, the Seventh Circuit determined that the EEOC’s pre-lawsuit conduct in the context of conciliation activities was immune from judicial review, and the Supreme Court grantedcertiorari to determine whether that was correct and, if not, what standard federal courts should use to review the EEOC’s conciliation efforts.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Commission’s position that its conciliation activities are beyond judicial review. It began by discussing the fact that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires the EEOC to “‘endeavor to eliminate [the] alleged unlawful employment practice by informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion.’” Mach Mining, No. 13- 1019, at 2 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b)). The Supreme Court observed that “Congress rarely intends to prevent courts from enforcing its directives to federal agencies,” and for that reason, the Supreme Court would “appl[y] a strong presumption favoring judicial review of administrative action.” Id. at 4.

The Supreme Court reasoned that “[c]ourts routinely enforce . . . . compulsory prerequisites to suit in Title VII litigation.” Id. at 5. As an example, the Supreme Court pointed to the fact that courts routinely dismiss discrimination complaints of parties that failed to file a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC. Id. The Supreme Court found that this supported judicial review of the EEOC’s compliance with the conciliation requirement. Id. at 6.

The Supreme Court also rejected the EEOC’s argument that “Title VII provides no standards by which to judge the EEOC’s performance of its statutory duty,” thus showing that “Congress demonstrated its intent to preclude judicial review.” Id. at 6. The Supreme Court concluded that the EEOC’s position was incorrect because, while the lack of a standard might indicate Congress’s intent to give the EEOC wide latitude in conducting the conciliation process, it did not give the EEOC the authority to ignore the conciliation process. Id. at 6-7. Specifically, the Supreme Court opined that, if the Commission’s position were correct, the EEOC could file suit without any attempt at conciliation, and federal courts could do nothing to remedy the failure to engage in conciliation. Id.

The Supreme Court then addressed the proper scope of judicial review to determine whether the EEOC had met its conciliation obligation. The Supreme Court declined to adopt the standard offered by Mach Mining as well as the Commission. The Supreme Court started with the plain language of the statute, noting that Title VII describes the statutory obligation as requiring “conference, conciliation, and persuasion.” Id. at 7. Those specified methods must therefore involve communication between the parties, including an exchange of information and views about the alleged unlawful employment practice. In sum, the EEOC must “tell the employer about the claim – essentially, what practice has harmed which person or class – and must provide the employer with an opportunity to discuss the matter in an effort to achieve voluntary compliance.” Id.

In defining the scope of judicial review, the Supreme Court threaded a line between the EEOC’s position and the position of the defense. The EEOC argued for the most minimal review possible – facial examination of documents prepared and submitted by the agency itself. In this case, the EEOC argued that the Supreme Court should be satisfied with two letters sent from the Commission to Mach Mining: (1) the reasonable cause letter, which informed the company that the EEOC would contact the party to initiate the conciliation process; and (2) a second, later letter, which simply stated that the conciliation process had occurred and failed. Id. at 8. The Supreme Court rejected the EEOC’s proposed level of review, holding that it simply fails to prove what the government claims, namely, whether the agency actually did what it said it did.

Mach Mining argued for a more searching review. In its briefs, the company had argued that a federal court should satisfy itself that the EEOC had negotiated conciliation in good faith. Working off of a standard set forth in the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), the company argued for some minimum prerequisites as to what “good faith” negotiation would look like, including setting forth the factual and legal basis for its positions and refraining from making “take-it-or-leave-it” offers. Id. at 9-10. The Supreme Court rejected that approach, holding that the NLRA is directed toward the process of negotiation itself. The law’s purpose is to create a sphere of bargaining to address labor disputes. Id. at 10. Title VII, on the other hand, is about compliance with the law. While the law favors cooperation and voluntary compliance, it gives the EEOC wide latitude to pursue that goal, holding that “Congress left to the EEOC such strategic decisions as whether to make a bare minimum offer, to lay all its cards on the table, or to respond to each of an employer’s counter-offers, however far afield.” Id. at 11. Critically, the Supreme Court also held that the company’s proposed standard of review would fall afoul of Title VII’s protection of the confidentiality of the conciliation process. A detailed review of that process would necessitate public disclosure of information in violation of the statute’s non-disclosure obligations. Id. at 11-12.

The Supreme Court concluded by adumbrating the future of litigation over this issue. The Supreme Court held that a sworn affidavit from the EEOC stating that it has performed its obligations often should be enough to show that it met its conciliation efforts. Id. at 13-14. But if employers counter with a credible affidavit of their own or other evidence that demonstrates that the EEOC “did not provide the requisite information about the charge or attempt to engage in a discussion about conciliating the claim,” then a federal court must conduct the fact-finding necessary to decide that dispute. Id. at 14. If the EEOC’s efforts were inadequate, the federal court must then order the agency to undertake the necessary efforts to ensure that it has satisfied its conciliation obligations. Id.

Implications For Employers
The implications for employers as a result of this decision cannot be overstated. The EEOC has been arguing for years in courts across the country that its conciliation efforts – and other pre-suit obligations – are entrusted solely to its discretion and therefore are immune to any form of judicial review. That position has been squarely defeated. While the scope of review articulated in the Supreme Court’s decision is a narrow one, the Supreme Court vigorously upheld the fundamental principle that judicial review of administrative action is the norm in our legal system. Given the often breathtaking scope of authority that the Commission seeks to carve out for itself, any reaffirmation of that principle comes as a welcome check on the EEOC’s activities. Further, the EEOC now has to present its position in a federal court, and its litigation strategies are apt to be very different when it must justify and show the basis for its conciliation positions before a neutral fact-finder. We will have to wait and see exactly how this issue is litigated in the lower federal courts. Suffice it to say, employers’ defense of “failure-to-conciliate” is still alive and well, and the EEOC’s litigation strategies are now likely to be in need of rebooting.