(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.
Home
