On Q Professional Investigations

You may not know it, but employment laws play a big role in the job hiring process long before you even become an employee.

Some laws affect what kind of advertisements the employer can place in looking for a qualified candidate. Other laws affect the legal rights a candidate has as soon as an interview begins. And even if you’re never hired, this may have no effect on your legal remedies.

Here are three common legal issues that come up during a job interview:

Discriminatory Questions. Employers cannot illegally discriminate in its hiring process based on an applicant’s protected characteristics like race, national origin, gender, pregnancy, age, disability, or religion. Most employers are savvy enough to avoid questions/comments that are directly discriminatory. But you should be on the lookout for questions regarding your marital status (employers afraid of maternity leave), year of graduation (age discrimination), and ability to do the job (if you have a disability). If an employer asks a potentially discriminatory question, you can politely ask them to stop.

Background Checks. Prospective employers have access to a treasure trove of personal information, both online and offline, which may factor into their hiring decisions. However, while most public information is fair game, state background check laws may prohibit employers from accessing and considering certain types of information like criminal records, military records, and medical history during the hiring process.

Oral Promises. If things go great, your employer may make a job offer. When considering the offer, make sure you get all promises regarding pay, benefits, and job responsibilities in writing. It can be difficult to enforce oral promises made during the interview.

If you have any specific questions regarding your legal rights at an interview, you may want to contact an employment attorney.

Read more

RUN – When an active shooter is in your vicinity:

• If there is an escape path, attempt to evacuate.
• Evacuate wheaten others agree to or not.
• Leave your belongings behind.
• Help others escape if possible.
• Prevent others from entering the area.
• Call 911 when you are safe.

HIDE – If evacuation is not possible, find a place to hide. Your hiding place should:

• Be out of the shooter’s view.
• Provide protection if shots are fired in your direction.
• Not trap or restrict your options for movement.
• Lock and/or blockade the door.
• Silence your cell phone.
• Hide behind large objects.
• Remain very quiet.

FIGHT – As a last resort, and only if your life is in danger:

• Attempt to incapacitate the shooter.
• Act with physical aggression.
• Improvise weapons.
• Commit to your actions.

View Educational Video RUN, HIDE, FIGHT

Nobody likes to be lied to — by their friends, family, and certainly not at work. While the occasional white lie might be permissible or even advisable in the office, being routinely deceived by your co-workers, staff, boss, or clients will leave you in the dark and amounts to a huge career liability.

Here are 8 ways to tell if you’re getting the straight truth from someone at the office:

There’s a disconnect between the situation and emotions. Let’s say there has been a leak of important internal information that has sent your stock price plummeting. If the person sharing the news doesn’t seem upset, that’s a red flag they might be the source of the leak. “A liar will display a general discrepancy between their emotional tone and the situation at hand,” says Pamela Meyer, author of “Liespotting: Proven Techniques to Detect Deception.” “In this case, [it might be] replying when asked, ‘Do you know who might have done this?’ with a withdrawn, monotone voice, expressing no particular emotion.”

They avoid your question. Someone who doesn’t want to lie but finds themselves cornered will avoid responding to your question altogether. What’s left unsaid is a lie of omission. “Liars feel like they haven’t lied when they don’t answer your question by changing the subject or by asking you a question,” says Dan Crum, a former polygraph examiner, special investigator with the CIA, and author of the book “Is He Lying To You?”

The person swears to God. People who have something to hide will make grandiose statements to try to hide their fib. “Professional interrogators often hear, ‘I swear on the bible I know nothing about this,’ or, ‘To tell you the absolute truth,’ ” says Meyer. If someone is telling you the entire truth, they don’t need to clarify that by telling you they are doing so — it’s just implied.

He or she is more or less animated than usual. If you suspect someone of lying, ask them a targeted question and then notice how they respond. Are they acting normal, for them? “An example might be that during small talk a person is animated and gestures when they speak and in response to your targeted questions they answer without any gesture,” says Crum.

They’re fiddling and looking down. Avoiding eye contact, slumping, or nervously playing with hair or a tie could all be signs of lying, says Meyer. But again, the key is what’s normal for that person. “Don’t jump to conclusions — know your subject’s norm, their baseline behavior. But note that liars tend to subconsciously attempt to disappear by slumping and lowering voice, while honest people if wrongly accused often raise their voice and appear visibly angry.”

They display unconscious movements. Crum says to notice which parts of a person’s body are at rest before you ask them a question. Ones that move are what he calls “awakened sleeps points” and this movement may signal a lie. “When a person lies their body wants to release the stress they feel over the fear of detection and their brain causes their body to automatically respond (the Fight, Flight or Freeze response) by waking up sleep points. You might see a person uncross their legs or tilt their body when answering your question,” says Crum.

They’re specific when denying wrongdoing. Liars will deny specific, not general, behaviors, Meyer says. For instance, someone hiding an indiscretion at work might say, “I did not speak to xx in the competitor’s product department,” while someone who’s in the clear might protest, “Are you kidding? I have never spoken to anyone in that company and never would!” Another example: Bill Clinton didn’t say he didn’t have an affair; he famously said, “I didn’t have sexual relations with that woman.” And, well, we know how truthful that statement was.

They react incorrectly to a baited question. Crum suggests asking a baited question, such as, “When I review the office security camera, will I see you stealing office supplies?” The trick is that there is no hidden camera. If the person starts to explain why you might see them apparently helping themselves to unwarranted supplies (“it’s not what you think”), you know something fishy is going on. If the person confidently says “no” and doesn’t take the bait, they’re probably in the clear.

Read more

Jared Lee Loughner, the alleged gunman in last year’s mass shooting outside an Arizona supermarket in Tucson that killed six people and wounded then-U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, pleaded guilty Tuesday to 19 charges in exchange for the government not seeking the death penalty.

Under the plea deal, Loughner will be sentenced to life in prison with no eligibility for parole, federal prosecutors said. His sentencing is scheduled for November 15, prosecutors said.

In court, Loughner also waived his right to pursue an insanity defense.

“My name is Jared Lee Loughner,” the defendant told the court when he held up his right hand under oath.

Loughner calmly told the court he understood his guilty plea. “Yes, that is correct,” he said.

“I’m 23 years old,” he told the court. “I attended college for five years at a community college.”

Earlier Tuesday, Judge Larry Alan Burns found Loughner competent to stand trial in a federal court in Tucson.

Warning signs of violence: What to do

“He’s a different person in appearance and affect,” the judge said about Loughner, who was present in the courtroom. “He’s tracking today. He appears to assist his lawyers. Court’s own observations are that there’s no question he understands what’s happening today.”

Loughner had been facing more than 50 federal charges, and the remaining offenses will be dropped in exchange for the guilty pleas if Loughner is sentenced within the terms of the plea agreement, according to the written agreement filed in court.

Under the pleas, Loughner admitted guilt in the attempted assassination of Giffords and the murders of federal employees U.S. District Court Chief Judge John M. Roll, 63, and congressional aide Gabriel M. Zimmerman, 30, prosecutors said.

Loughner also pleaded guilty to the attempted murders of federal employees and congressional aides Ronald S. Barber, 65, and Pamela K. Simon, 63, prosecutors said.

Loughner also admitted causing the deaths of Christina-Taylor Green, age 9; Dorothy “Dot” J. Morris, 76; Phyllis C. Schneck, 79; and Dorwan C. Stoddard, 76, prosecutors said.

Loughner admitted injuring with a Glock pistol 10 persons participating at an activity provided by the U.S. government and creating a grave risk of death to 13 more persons, prosecutors said.

Prosecutors agreed to a plea deal — and not to seek the death penalty — after taking into account Loughner’s history of mental illness and the views of victims and their families.

“It is my hope that this decision will allow the Tucson community, and the nation, to continue the healing process free of what would likely be extended trial and pre-trial proceedings that would not have a certain outcome,” U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement.

Read more

Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer will pay $60 million to settle charges that it paid millions in bribes to foreign officials, federal authorities announced Tuesday.

Pfizer will pay roughly $45 million to the Securities and Exchange Commission to settle charges that the company, along with fellow pharmaceutical firm Wyeth, which Pfizer acquired a few years ago, violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

The SEC says staff from the companies’ subsidiaries paid bribes to foreign government officials to boost sales and obtain regulatory approvals. The violations occurred in Bulgaria, China, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Italy, Kazakhstan, Russia and Serbia, the SEC said.

Pfizer also entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the Department of Justice, agreeing to pay a $15 million penalty.

“Corrupt pay-offs to foreign officials in order to secure lucrative contracts creates an inherently uneven marketplace and puts honest companies at a disadvantage,” James McJunkin of the FBI’s Washington field office said in a statement.

In China, for example, Pfizer employees rewarded government doctors who prescribed large amounts of the company’s drugs by inviting them to meetings with “extensive recreational and entertainment activities,” the SEC said. In Croatia, the agency said, government doctors received a portion of the proceeds from Pfizer’s drug sales to the doctors’ own institutions.
Health care savings advice

Pfizer noted that there is no allegation that anyone at the company’s corporate headquarters knew of the conduct in question, which it voluntarily reported to the government.

“The actions which led to this resolution were disappointing, but the openness and speed with which Pfizer voluntarily disclosed and addressed them reflects our true culture and the real value we place on integrity and meeting commitments,” Amy Schulman, executive vice president and general counsel at Pfizer (PFE, Fortune 500), said in a statement.

The SEC said the violations date as far back as 2001, and that Pfizer initially reported them in 2004.

Shares of Pfizer were down 1.5% in mid-day trading Tuesday.

Retailing giant Wal-Mart (WMT, Fortune 500) made the news earlier this year after a New York Times report alleging that the company paid $24 million worth of bribes in Mexico to streamline construction projects. Dozens of other public companies have revealed they are facing scrutiny from regulators over possible foreign bribery violations as well.

Read more

For three decades, the story of gun control was one of notorious crimes and laws passed in response, beginning with the federal law that followed the assassinations of Robert F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968. But after a Democratic-controlled Congress in 1994 passed bills proposed by President Clinton to restrict certain kinds of assault weapons and to create a national system of background checks for gun purchases, the political pendulum began to swing the other way. President Bush’s defeat of Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election was attributed in part to the perception among gun owners that Mr. Gore was “anti-gun.”

Supporters of gun control regularly point to the power of the National Rifle Association, whose 4.3 million members make it one of the most effective advocacy groups in Washington.

In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights included a guarantee of the personal right to own a gun. The decision was both a measure of how far the pro-gun debate had moved, and a blow to many of the stricter gun control laws adopted by cities like Washington and Chicago.

In recent years, there have been calls for a renewed debate over gun violence after a series of horrific shootings. In November 2009, an Army psychiatrist at Fort Hood, Tex., was accused of shooting and killing 13 people and wounding 30 people. In January 2011, a gunman in Tucson, Ariz., armed with a Glock semiautomatic, shot and killed six people and wounded 14 others, including former Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Democrat of Arizona.

In the wake of the Tucson shootings, gun control advocates said they believed the shock of the attack would alter the political atmosphere, in no small part because one of the victims was a member of Congress. But the bills that were introduced — including ones to restrict sales of 100-bullet magazines or to tighten background checks — went nowhere.

Calls for a Renewed Debate After Colorado Rampage

The frustration of gun-control proponents was even more clearly on display in the wake of a deadly rampage in July 2012, when a gunman in Aurora, Colo. — armed with an AR-15 assault rifle, a Remington 12-gauge shotgun and a 40-caliber Glock handgun — opened fire in a crowded theater at a midnight showing of the latest Batman movie, killing 12 people and wounding 58 others. The victims included members of the military and a 6-year-old girl. The attack was one of the deadliest mass shootings in the history of the United States.

In response to the tragic shootings, Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York called on the presidential nominees Barack Obama and Mitt Romney to come up with a comprehensive gun control policy.

Read more

8-year-old Elizabeth Collins and 10-year-old Lyric Cook have been missing for 11 days. Investigators believe someone abducted them from Evansdale on July 13th. The girls’ bikes were found near Meyers Lake, but after days of searching, investigators will only say they have evidence to believe the girls are alive.

Misty Cook-Morrissey, Lyric’s mother, took a polygraph shortly after the girls’ disappearance. She said her first test came back ‘inconclusive’. On Sunday, Cook-Morrissey reportedly agreed to a second polygraph. On Monday, she told reporters she passed the second test.

Corporal Kurt Horch is a 21-year veteran of the Dubuque Police Department. He started giving polygraph tests four years ago.

In cases where a polygraph comes back inconclusive, Cpl. Horch says it’s most often the test-giver who makes the mistake. However, when done correctly, the detective said it is a useful tool for narrowing down your pool of suspects.

“People call it a lie detector. It’s actually a fear detector,” Cpl. Horch explains. “The fear is being caught telling a lie or caught in a deception.”

Cpl. Horch says about twelve years ago polygraphs went from needle and ink to fully digital. Now, the test is recorded on a computer. The software is linked to a blood pressure, respiratory and sweat gland monitors that are hooked up to the test subject.

“It’s constantly records the small physiological changes in one’s body,” he says. “I always tell people it’s one of the simplest tests they’re ever going to take, because we go over all the questions prior.”

The examiner starts by asking what’s called a control question. This is usually something pertaining to the test subjects background. An example might be, ‘Have you ever lie to someone you cared about?’

The examiner then follows with a case specific question. For example, ‘Did you help plan or participate in a house fire set on July 22nd?’

A test-giver will ask these questions multiple times in different order. The lines show when breathing, heart rate or sweat activity spikes. These measurements are all scored on a point system after the test.

“It comes down to what’s the bigger threat,” Cpl. Horch says, “The guilty person is going to be worried about specific questions. An innocent person might be more nervous about background questions whether they ever lied to someone they trusted.”

Horch says the polygraph is used mainly as an investigative tool. The results don’t always hold up well in court, and no one can be forced to take a polygraph. The test is voluntary.

“If there’s more than one suspect or viable suspects and we want to whittle that list down, we offer polygraphs to help clear your name.”

The detective said a miss worded question can often cause problems with a polygraph. He add that a “super-dampening” or a traumatic event prior to the polygraph can also lead to an inconclusive result.

Polygraph examiners are required to take a 10 week course and update their training regularly. It comes out to about 400 class hours. There’s actually more pressure on the test-giver to get things right.

He says it’s the examiner know all the details of the case to avoid asking wrong or misleading questions.

Read more

A US mother is facing six felony counts for allegedly hacking into her children’s school computer, changing their grades, and accessing the school’s human resources system to open thousands of personnel files that contained contracts, employee reports and other information.

The mother, Catherine Venusto, 45, from New Tripoli, Pennsylvania, worked as a secretary for the Northwestern Lehigh School District from 2008 through April 2011 and has at least two children in the district, according to the District Attorney’s office.

Venusto is accused of changing her daughter’s grade from an F to an M for “medical,” of allegedly boosting her son’s grade of 98 percent to 99 percent, and of using the superintendent’s information to log onto the district email system and to access Northwestern Lehigh’s human resources system.

According to Lehigh Valley Live.com, Venusto allegedly used the superintendent’s password 110 times over the course of a year and a half to conduct the mischief.

Authorities told news outlets that Venusto also used the information of nine other Northwestern Lehigh employees, most of whom were in the guidance department, to access computer systems.

According to Lehigh Valley Live, officials first suspected a problem in January after the high school principal told superintendent Dr. Mary Anne Wright that teachers didn’t understand why she was checking their computer-based gradebooks.

Wright told the principal that she hadn’t looked at the books. That’s when the jig was up.

The district immediately shut down the student information system, quickly initiated steps to bolster security, and turned the matter over to state police, Wright told Lehigh Valley Live:

“Within three hours of suspecting unauthorized access, email, student information system and the district shared drive were shut down until we were able to fully identify the issue. New security measures were put in place before the systems were accessed again by staff, students or parents.”

A plus gradeVenusto is facing three counts each of unlawful use of a computer and computer trespass, which are third-degree felonies.

She was arraigned on Wednesday and released on $30,000 unsecured bail, which she’ll only have to pay if she fails to appear in court for her preliminary hearing on July 26.

If she’s convicted, Venusto could face a maximum of 42 years in prison or a $90,000 fine, District Attorney’s office spokeswoman Debbie Garlicki told ABC News Radio.

Garlicki said that the maximum penalty on each count is seven years or a $15,000 fine.

The school district may well have acted promptly to clamp down systems and improve security after they discovered the trespassing and tinkering, but the plain fact is that leading up to this incident, employees seemed to play fast and loose with security.

Perhaps it’s necessary for a superintendent’s secretary to know her boss’s login information. Even if it is, it’s hard to imagine why Wright failed to change her password after Venusto left her job.

This is a good reminder that a password that walks out the door inside the brain of an ex-employee (as well as a current employee, insider-threat-wise) could well come back to haunt us.

Read more

The number of U.S. government employees and contractors holding security clearances jumped to 4.86 million last year from 4.7 million the year prior, according to the 2011 Report on Security Clearance Determinations, which the Director of National Intelligence has forwarded to Congress.

That’s about a 3 percent gain over the year prior, the first year statistics became available. In other words, another 160,000 people were removed from the category of: “If we told you we’d have to kill you.”

The figures, obtained by Secrecy News, are required to be published to Congress as a result of the Intelligence Reauthorization Act of 2010. The data count those cleared for confidential, secret and top secret records.

The report (.pdf) also indicated that the numbers could have been higher. The Central Intelligence Agency denied a security clearance to 5.3 percent of the people who applied. At the National Security Agency, the number was 8 percent. The Federal Bureau of Investigation reported less than a 1 percent denial rate.

Thousands of pending security cases remain stalled. That’s because many of the linguists and specialists the intelligence community most wants “often have significant foreign associations that may take additional time to investigate and adjudicate,” according the report.

The accounting method to determine clearance numbers was not perfect, the report added. In fact, they “are likely to include some duplicate entries, despite ongoing efforts to eliminate duplicative clearance information,” the report said. “Creating a single repository to house all national security determinations is not currently feasible given the sensitivity of certain clearance information and the need for non-IC (Intelligence Community) agencies to have a repository to report determinations.”

In other words: The roster of people who are allowed to know secrets is itself so secret, it’s impossible to even assemble a single, decent list.

Read more

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is looking to add tattoos to its portfolio of human identifying characteristics, and it’s reaching out to industry for information on how to do that, according to a request for information.

The FBI’s Biometric Center of Excellence (BCOE) is seeking information regarding existing databases of tattoos, according to the July 13 RFI, which was posted on the Federal Business Opportunities website, FBO.gov, and first reported by NextGov.

The FBI has a list of questions for industry and law enforcement agencies on tattoo databases, including whether “possible meanings and gang affiliations” are provided and whether gang experts are involved in that analysis. The RFI inquires about the underlying database technology, how information is extracted, and standards for metadata and images.

The FBI describes BCOE as a “one-stop shop for biometric collaboration and expertise.” Best known for its fingerprint and DNA identification services, the center is also developing capabilities in voice, iris, and other identifying characteristics. In the area of emerging biometrics, it’s exploring footprints and hand geometry.

Tattoo recognition is part of the FBI’s Next General Identification program, a multiyear initiative to develop ID capabilities beyond fingerprints and criminal mug shots. On July 18, Jerome Pender, deputy assistant director of the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Service division, told a Senate subcommittee that three phases of the program are in development, including one focusing on scars, marks, and tattoos. The capability to support that is scheduled for deployment in the summer of 2014.

Read more