Just weeks after George Santos’ election to the House of Representatives, questions began to arise about claims he made on the campaign trail.

According to a story from National Public Radio: “Santos described graduating from Baruch College, said he worked for Goldman Sachs, and claimed to own valuable real estate properties.

He now acknowledges none of that is true.”

Santos’s case has created a firestorm of attention, with both voters and fellow politicians weighing in on whether he is fit to hold public office.

Regardless of what you think about Santos, his story shares a number of parallels to experiences found in the hiring process, where job candidates often misrepresent themselves to prospective employers.

Sifting through Embellishments and Lies

Studies estimate that 40% - 60% of applicants embellish or simply lie on their resumes. Some of the more common falsified claims relate to years of experience, job titles, education history, length of service at previous employers, salary, and job skills. Basically, everything of consequence.

These types of deceptive practices are certainly not news to HR departments. Like the police officer who grants drivers some wiggle room when it comes to exceeding the speed limit, most HR managers expect, and are accepting of, a certain amount of embellishment.

Otherwise, they would be eliminating half of their applicant pool and would be severely limiting their ability to fill positions in a timely manner.

What is Acceptable and What is Not?

The fact is that not all embellishments are created equally and this leads to something of a gray area in terms of how companies handle these situations.

HR managers and supervisors may be willing to look the other way if a recent college graduate inflates their GPA by a few tenths of a point or if an employee claims to have 15 years of experience when the actual number is closer to 12.

But what if an applicant for a nursing position lies about their certifications?

Or an engineer claims to have the proper credentials but does not?

Even in less extreme situations where the falsification may not have a direct impact on job performance, it may speak to the integrity and moral character of the person you are interviewing.

The number of opportunities that exist for an applicant to fabricate parts of their work history underscores the importance of making background checks a standard part of the hiring process.

Whether you do these investigations yourself or hire a company like Commercial Investigations LLC, it’s critical to verify the core elements of the resume.

Here are five tips to help businesses avoid making a bad hire and ensure they are able to defend their actions should they make a poor decision.

1.      Let the job description be your guide. The more extensive your background check, the more time it will take (if you’re doing it yourself) or the more it may cost (if you’re working with a third-party investigator).

In order to be as efficient as possible, make sure your background check focuses on the essential elements of the job description. If red flags are identified in areas you would consider critical to job performance, that’s probably an indication to move on from the candidate.

2.      Make all candidates fill out an application. For many companies and positions, the resume has become the de facto application. The problem is that resumes can be more easily embellished than a job application.

And if a lie/embellishment is found on a resume, the applicant may claim that someone else helped with the writing. Job applications, while not embellish-proof, are almost always going to be completed by the applicant themselves.

It’s also a best practice to require a signature on the application, since it forces the person to attest to the accuracy of the information they have provided.

3.      Share information across the hiring team. During the hiring process, it is not uncommon for one person to review the resume, another person to process the application, and a third person to lead the background check.

Plus, there are others likely involved in face-to-face interviews. It is important for all parties to share information and compare notes to assure alignment in what the candidate has said about their background and experiences.

Any significant discrepancies should merit deeper exploration.

4.      It’s never too late to run a background check. In the current hiring environment where HR departments are struggling to fill openings, there’s an understandable desire to fast-track the hiring process. 

As a result, background are generally being scaled back or eliminated altogether.

If this happens and the new hire subsequently begins to show signs they are not who they presented themselves to be, use that as an opportunity to revisit the background check and make sure they are indeed qualified for the role.

5.      Be consistent in how you handle false claims. If you decide not to move forward with a candidate based on information found in the background investigation, New York State law and EEOC guidelines require you to document the reasons behind your decision (check out this blog post to learn more).

Using a tool such as our Individualized Assessment Decision Matrix™ (IADM) helps ensure you are being consistent with how you handle applicants who misrepresent themselves during the hiring process, while helping protect your organization against potential claims of discrimination.

Get your Individualized Assessment Decision Matrix™ template by clicking the link.

The Legal Risk of Negligent Hiring

If you still aren’t convinced on the need to do background checks, then consider the risk of a “negligent hire.”

According to the Society for Human Resource Management, negligent hiring is “a claim that can be made against an employer when an employee causes harm to others and the employer should have known of the individual's potential to cause harm but did not take steps to mitigate the risk (i.e., not hiring the individual).”

Conducting background checks and documenting your subsequent actions is one of the best ways to avoid negligent hiring liability. After all, you can’t defend the decision to hire if you were not even aware of the employee’s history.

If you did know, you can at least say you were aware of the situation and chose to hire the individual for certain reasons. That’s much firmer ground to stand on than saying you had no idea.

In such cases, ignorance is most definitely not bliss.