Cathie's Corner Blog

(Published November 16, 2009)

I was asked an interesting question recently, a twist on a frequently asked question. While it is not unusual for an employee to ask if an employer can give a negative reference, this employee wanted to know what to do if the employer refused to confirm employment at all. Unfortunately, there wasn't much I could tell her. With limited exceptions, employers are not required to provide references, or even to confirm employment. If her employer opted not to do so, I can't think of any law that will force the issue.

What I am having a hard time imagining, though, is why an employer would refuse to confirm at least dates of employment.  While I stand firmly on the side of providing accurate, truthful information about an employee's performance in most cases, I can understand why an employer would want to limit the information they provide, particularly in the case of a marginal or poor performer. But to not even verify that the employee worked there? What possible reason will there be for that?

I can only assume that the employer has so completely bought into the idea that they can be sued for providing "bad references" that they are refusing to give any information at all. But that's shortsighted at best. I don't think the employer really thought this through if they are afraid that confirming dates of employment will get them into legal trouble.

The employee may have some recourse if she can show that the employer customarily provides references for other employees. Also, while the employee did not indicate to me whether this is the case or not, if this is happening in retaliation for her having filed a wage or discrimination complaint, the employee could file suit and be awarded damages.

Certainly there are valid reasons to limit the amount of information that is given out.  While I've already said that in most cases I believe employers should provide accurate information on employees, I do not deny that there are circumstances when limiting it to dates of employment and job title, etc., can be the wisest thing. But refusal to even confirm that the employee worked there seems to be just petty.

If you have a valid reason to believe that there might be some legal difficulties with providing information (for example, if your HR department does not know the employee personally but the manager cannot be relied upon to keep within legal boundaries of what should or should not be said), then by all means, stick to limits.  Dates of employment, salary, and job title can all be safely verified with no fear of any sort of legal issues, as long as the information provided is factual. But to refuse to even acknowledge the employment of an employee is just wrong, in my opinion. There's no justification for that.

Catherine Bannon is an HR consultant in Marshfield, MA (catherine.bannon@gmail.com). Bannon worked for 10 years in HR management before starting her consulting practice.

(Published November 9,2009)

I've been running all over the countryside giving open enrollment meetings.  In the last two weeks, I've been to 15 towns or cities in six states, giving sometimes as many as eight meetings a day (counting both first and second shift meetings at the same location).  I've done a lot of driving.  The driving time has given me the opportunity to reflect on a few ideas that I'll remember for next year's meetings. 

Check local news.  I was blindsided the other day because the employees had heard a news report that the local hospital was in negotiations with the new health insurance carrier.  I live 130 miles from there.  I had no idea.  But next year I may consider checking up on the status of local contracts before I go into a meeting.

Confirm addresses.  I was handed a schedule and told, essentially, "This is where you have to be and the times you have to be there."  On at least two occasions, the addresses on the schedule were incorrect.  In one of the instances, it didn't make much of a difference; the building number was only off by three buildings, and I was easily able to find the actual location.  But in the other case, the difference between Prospect Street and Upper Prospect Street resulted in my not being able to find the location at all, until I called them and said, "This is where I am — where are you?"  I was a good two miles away.  They were on Upper Prospect — my schedule said they were on Prospect.  If I'd confirmed the address on their website, I'd have seen it.  (And I just this minute stopped writing long enough to go to the website and confirm the addresses for tomorrow's meetings!)

Check driving times.  I've known for a long time that you need to add at least 15 to 30 minutes to the times Mapquest tells you it will take (and my experiences with Mapquest are another whole blog), but even making that allowance, some of the times were just too tight to manage.  Whoever made up the schedule evidently did not know that you can't trust Mapquest times and needs to allow for that kind of thing — or the detour I hit on one road that delayed me for 20 minutes and even just plain traffic.  It's not too hard to build extra time into a meeting schedule.

Of course, such things are not always within your control.  I had no say in the scheduling, for example.  But if you do have a way to utilize these ideas, I hope you'll find them useful.  They would have helped me a lot!

Catherine Bannon is an HR consultant in Marshfield, MA (catherine.bannon@gmail.com). Bannon worked for 10 years in HR management before starting her consulting practice.