Background Checks

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Did Mary Kay Letourneau hurt any child before she was convicted as a sex offender?

Doesn't matter.

The real question is whether we should depend on her to tell her next employer (possibly a school system) about her conviction or whether her employer should do background checks.

What do you think her next victim's lawyer would say when they're suing the school for millions for negligence...since it was so easy to find out about her history...$millions that each of us will have to pay through higher taxes. The schools are protecting themselves as much as anything.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Doesn't matter.

The real question is whether we should depend on her to tell her next employer (possibly a school system) about her conviction or whether her employer should do background checks.

Did she tell the first employer that she was engaging in inappropriate contact? Of course not, but the point is she had more access to this kid (now her husband) much more than I will ever have with a young person during and after a game.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

What do you think her next victim's lawyer would say when they're suing the school for millions for negligence...since it was so easy to find out about her history...$millions that each of us will have to pay through higher taxes. The schools are protecting themselves as much as anything.

Well anyone can sue over anything. I am sure someone might one day sue over how far the background checks should go.

The bottom line is that policy should not be made on whether it stops one person out of thousands. All I am saying is that you need more than a background check. You need policies that keep kids away from adults in inappropriate ways.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Doesn't matter.

The real question is whether we should depend on her to tell her next employer (possibly a school system) about her conviction or whether her employer should do background checks.

What do you think her next victim's lawyer would say when they're suing the school for millions for negligence...since it was so easy to find out about her history...$millions that each of us will have to pay through higher taxes. The schools are protecting themselves as much as anything.

This is NOT an employer/employee relationship. The schools have gone out of their way over the past decade to declare sports officials to be independent contractors. This was clearly done to save money. The schools did not wish to pay for workmans comp if an official was injured during a game, pick up the insurance premiums for officials, provide any health benefits, send out W-2 forms, deal with state registration fees, etc.
This is a legal classification is a really big deal.

My opinion is that if they are going to dump all of these costs on the officials and claim that they are NOT their boss, then they do not have a right to certain information which an employer would.

If my state decides to force officials to submit to background checks, I will immediately contend that they are establishing an employer/employee relationship, and must remove sports officials from the independent contractor classification. We'll see how they like the consequences of that. I'm sure that the officials association could get a court hearing on that issue.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This is NOT an employer/employee relationship. The schools have gone out of their way over the past decade to declare sports officials to be independent contractors. This was clearly done to save money. The schools did not wish to pay for workmans comp if an official was injured during a game, pick up the insurance premiums for officials, provide any health benefits, send out W-2 forms, deal with state registration fees, etc.
This is a legal classification is a really big deal.

My opinion is that if they are going to dump all of these costs on the officials and claim that they are NOT their boss, then they do not have a right to certain information which an employer would.

If my state decides to force officials to submit to background checks, I will immediately contend that they are establishing an employer/employee relationship, and must remove sports officials from the independent contractor classification. We'll see how they like the consequences of that. I'm sure that the officials association could get a court hearing on that issue.

Nice try. But the relationship, even as independant contractors, will always have employer/employee like elements. One being that they pay you and you get paid. Another is that they can set the qualifications for who they will contract with....insurance, licensing, etc. Setting qualificatoins for independant contractors is well within thier rights.

There are several good sources of information on what causes a person to become an employee and setting qualifications for the job are not among them. See any of the following:

• Legal Definition of 'Independent Contractor'
• Independent Contractor Law & Legal Definition
• Independent Contractor (Self-Employed) or Employee?
• Independent Contractor legal definition of Independent Contractor. Independent Contractor synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

I agree that the individual schools shouldn't and don't need the information...only that the certification authority has done a basic check and has found nothing that would prohibit you from working as an official. If you're certified, that is all the school needs to know.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Nice try. But the relationship, even as independant contractors, will always have employer/employee like elements. One being that they pay you and you get paid. Another is that they can set the qualifications for who they will contract with....insurance, licensing, etc. Setting qualificatoins for independant contractors is well within thier rights.

There are several good sources of information on what causes a person to become an employee and setting qualifications for the job are not among them. See any of the following:

• Legal Definition of 'Independent Contractor'
• Independent Contractor Law & Legal Definition
• Independent Contractor (Self-Employed) or Employee?
• Independent Contractor legal definition of Independent Contractor. Independent Contractor synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

I agree that the individual schools shouldn't and don't need the information...only that the certification authority has done a basic check and has found nothing that would prohibit you from working as an official. If you're certified, that is all the school needs to know.

The main problem with your references is that independent contractor laws and classifications vary from one state to another. And certain classifications like this might be different in how you file or claim independent contractor status.

And I have no idea if there is any court case that made this issue clear as Nevada mentioned. I know in my state the IHSA wanted all associations to participate in an "Observer's Program" to help make officials better. But it was made very clear to those associations that the information would not be used for post season assignments (all made by the IHSA directly) because this would violate independent contractor classifications and might have the IHSA fined or have to pay every official in the state benefits and pay other tax monies for their "employees."

I also recall that Florida passed some kind of law that required all sports officials (and it might have dealt with other professions) to have to file a background check in each county and the officials themselves had to pay for each background check. I believe there was some litigation or modification of the policy because it had other ramifications when the law was created.

It is very possible that someone could sue any jurisdiction over this issue when we are not employees. Not saying it would be successful, but it could happen.

Peace

[Steve M]

From a "grandfathered" official in Pa, I've got some mixed feelings and thoughts. But one of the thoughts I'd like those supporting the checks to think about - what is the organization requiring the checks going to do with the official they have gotten a false positive on? The organization has suspended returning official or not sanctioned the new oficial - and now, it turns out that the check was wrong. This official has been labeled as a likely sex offender or child molestor. I don't see any way to make this up to that official who was falsely accused. Once that "accusation" is made, there's no real return.