Employment background check

[MikeG500]

I was just wondering if anyone knew anything about employment background checks and name changes. I changed my name over two years ago and have been living stealth since. I am graduating from college next year and have just had some interviews for summer internships. This made me think about the line "List any previous names used" and what I should do? I don't want to disclose but I also don't want it to cause issues as if I was lying to my future employer. I just bought a credit report a couple weeks ago and only one of the companies (Transunion) showed my old name under "previous names used". I recently contacted the credit company for them to remove my old name and they did it very easily. So now I am wondering since that was erased, is there any other way a background check would even show my old name? Thanks!

[defective snowflake]

A background check would look into anything criminal and when it was done on me by my employer, something from my driving history showed up on it. So yeah, likely it will come up or it will look suspicious to just go back a couple years and then no trail unless you're pretty young.


not to mention, if they ask for any previous names used and you fail to enter them, I imagine that can be grounds for dismissal if they find out otherwise with a lot of employers depending on their policies. 

[tgchar21]

not to mention, if they ask for any previous names used and you fail to enter them, I imagine that can be grounds for dismissal if they find out otherwise with a lot of employers depending on their policies.

Guidance from past cases (that dealt with immigrants who changed their names to assimilate and avoid discrimination, but the same principle should apply to the trans community) says that employers need to know former or other names only to enable them to properly check your credentials and background. If your employer has no practical reason* to know your former name, putting down something like "none that relevant records are under" is an acceptable alternative response (if you want to CYA in case they find an excuse down the road to fire you). On the other hand, if they need to know your former name in order to check your work or educational history (for an event that occurred before you changed your name, and you haven't or they won't update your records) you'll probably have to out yourself sooner or later.

*Practical reasons include needing to verify your employment history or a degree/diploma/educational certificate/license that is under the name, to contact references that only know you by your former name, or if you have ANY criminal history under said name (this includes aliases that your history may be under). Note that if you leave off past employment for the sake of hoping not to out yourself that could be construed as misrepresenting your work history (since people commonly do that to hide employment that they left under less-than-favorable terms), and if you fail to give out all names/aliases your criminal history is under you may be accused of trying to cover your history up. (If the criminal history check is the only issue, another "alternative response" idea is to put down that you'll disclose the sensitive information only to the company or agency running the check.)

I should note that in cases like an adoption or the name was otherwise changed before said person was of working age (which may apply to some of our child or teen transitioners), it's generally held (except with security clearance type jobs, of which a lot I said in this post may not apply) that the name does not need to be brought up - at this link it's item #6 discussed (but like I said if you feel the need to CYA you can use a response like I suggested).

[Shana-chan]

Hemm, would just the name you go by be show, your first name or your full name? Never thought about this before till now..

[MikeG500]

Guidance from past cases (that dealt with immigrants who changed their names to assimilate and avoid discrimination, but the same principle should apply to the trans community) says that employers need to know former or other names only to enable them to properly check your credentials and background. If your employer has no practical reason* to know your former name, putting down something like "none that relevant records are under" is an acceptable alternative response (if you want to CYA in case they find an excuse down the road to fire you). On the other hand, if they need to know your former name in order to check your work or educational history (for an event that occurred before you changed your name, and you haven't or they won't update your records) you'll probably have to out yourself sooner or later.

*Practical reasons include needing to verify your employment history or a degree/diploma/educational certificate/license that is under the name, to contact references that only know you by your former name, or if you have ANY criminal history under said name (this includes aliases that your history may be under). Note that if you leave off past employment for the sake of hoping not to out yourself that could be construed as misrepresenting your work history (since people commonly do that to hide employment that they left under less-than-favorable terms), and if you fail to give out all names/aliases your criminal history is under you may be accused of trying to cover your history up. (If the criminal history check is the only issue, another "alternative response" idea is to put down that you'll disclose the sensitive information only to the company or agency running the check.)

I should note that in cases like an adoption or the name was otherwise changed before said person was of working age (which may apply to some of our child or teen transitioners), it's generally held (except with security clearance type jobs, of which a lot I said in this post may not apply) that the name does not need to be brought up - at this link it's item #6 discussed (but like I said if you feel the need to CYA you can use a response like I suggested).

I am 23 and changed my name when I was 20. My college records are all under my current legal name and my most recent part time job was under my new legal name. The only thing that would be under my old name that I can think of is old speeding tickets I had a few years ago. (Also my high school but that doesn't matter to employers in my degree).

So I guess that means it's not relevant for me?

[Ducks]

Find something you don't care about see if it pops up anything from that name.  I would rather find out with something I can live without like a concealed carry gun permit, than find out trying to get my dream job. 

[tgchar21]

I am 23 and changed my name when I was 20. My college records are all under my current legal name and my most recent part time job was under my new legal name. The only thing that would be under my old name that I can think of is old speeding tickets I had a few years ago. (Also my high school but that doesn't matter to employers in my degree).

So I guess that means it's not relevant for me?

With your case and the speeding tickets it's a bit iffy. Like someone else said even those kinds of things can show up on your criminal history report - the risk you take is if it's something that doesn't show up with only your current name, but would if the prior name was also known when the check was done, you could be presumed to be trying to hide your record and that can get you in trouble. Your best bet is to pull your driving record from the state(s) where the infractions took place, and see if they need to know both names to make it show up.

[Jessica Merriman]

If you apply for a city, state, county or especially federal job you will have to list ALL names used in the past. There is no way to get away with name stealth in these positions.

[tgchar21]

If you apply for a city, state, county or especially federal job you will have to list ALL names used in the past. There is no way to get away with name stealth in these positions.

That's not quite true - for a city job I once asked someone from HR (not mentioning the specifics), and like for most jobs they said if you don't have anything relevant you don't need to list it (at least in cases where it was changed before you'd have any history to be checked). Now what you said is true for federal jobs, particularly those that require a security clearance, but even then you can arrange it where you can disclose the prior names only to those running the checks and not to the one making the actual hiring decision as I suggested as a tip (as someone on here once did for a security clearance - I don't know if she's still actively posting or not).

ETA: What Jessica said is very true for something like a police officer or the kind of position it looks like she's in based on her title (where they can ask you lots of things that employers can't for typical jobs like details about your family, and you'll know the difference right away), but not for a run-of-the-mill "low-security" position (like working as a city clerk or in the sanitation or utilities department) - and if in doubt you can ask someone in charge like I did. With a job like a teacher that involves work around minors, they will almost certainly do a formal criminal history check (but not the intensive investigations of your whole life that those in positions like Jessica's get), but like I mentioned above you may be able to work around and give the sensitive info straight to whoever's searching your history.

ETA2: I did some digging around searching several local government sites (of varying sizes), and in many cases there are different forms used for the positions I referred to vs. the kind that Jessica referred to (the former looks like a typical application and if they ask for other names it's for the typical purpose, and the latter is usually much longer and asks for much more info that a standard one can't).

[MikeG500]

That's not quite true - for a city job I once asked someone from HR (not mentioning the specifics), and like for most jobs they said if you don't have anything relevant you don't need to list it (at least in cases where it was changed before you'd have any history to be checked). Now what you said is true for federal jobs, particularly those that require a security clearance, but even then you can arrange it where you can disclose the prior names only to those running the checks and not to the one making the actual hiring decision as I suggested as a tip (as someone on here once did for a security clearance - I don't know if she's still actively posting or not).

ETA: What Jessica said is very true for something like a police officer or the kind of position it looks like she's in based on her title (where they can ask you lots of things that employers can't for typical jobs like details about your family, and you'll know the difference right away), but not for a run-of-the-mill "low-security" position (like working as a city clerk or in the sanitation or utilities department) - and if in doubt you can ask someone in charge like I did. With a job like a teacher that involves work around minors, they will almost certainly do a formal criminal history check (but not the intensive investigations of your whole life that those in positions like Jessica's get), but like I mentioned above you may be able to work around and give the sensitive info straight to whoever's searching your history.

ETA2: I did some digging around searching several local government sites (of varying sizes), and in many cases there are different forms used for the positions I referred to vs. the kind that Jessica referred to (the former looks like a typical application and if they ask for other names it's for the typical purpose, and the latter is usually much longer and asks for much more info that a standard one can't).

Hmm...Honestly some of the positions i've applied to do have security clearance type stuff like NASA or places that do aerospace or defence work. I guess that I will just have to suck it up and write my old name down... BUT I was thinking that if it does come up wouldn't they just ask me about it and then I could clear it up? Or would that just nix me right away? My old name spelling is pretty similar to my name and I could possibly get away with saying it's the French spelling (Because it is a common French name but female) but I changed it for convenience. I don't know... It's tough.

[tgchar21]

Hmm...Honestly some of the positions i've applied to do have security clearance type stuff like NASA or places that do aerospace or defence work. I guess that I will just have to suck it up and write my old name down... BUT I was thinking that if it does come up wouldn't they just ask me about it and then I could clear it up? Or would that just nix me right away? My old name spelling is pretty similar to my name and I could possibly get away with saying it's the French spelling (Because it is a common French name but female) but I changed it for convenience. I don't know... It's tough.

As I've said your best bet, instead of fudging the story on the name itself, is to simply put down that you'll release such info only when needed to the parties performing the investigation (I think the phrasing the other member on here once used was "Available to Authorized Investigator Only"). The only drawback is it may slow down the process a bit (since then they'll need to contact you back when you give them the name), but it should save you from outing yourself to the ones who make the final decision on whether or not you get hired.

[MikeG500]

As I've said your best bet, instead of fudging the story on the name itself, is to simply put down that you'll release such info only when needed to the parties performing the investigation (I think the phrasing the other member on here once used was "Available to Authorized Investigator Only"). The only drawback is it may slow down the process a bit (since then they'll need to contact you back when you give them the name), but it should save you from outing yourself to the ones who make the final decision on whether or not you get hired.

Okay, I'll see if I can figure out something to say without sounding suspicious. Thanks for the insight

[tgchar21]

Okay, I'll see if I can figure out something to say without sounding suspicious. Thanks for the insight

Since there are plenty of cases where one may not want to reveal a prior name to the public (e.g. witness protection, abusive ex-spouse or family) the comments like I suggested shouldn't raise any horrible eyebrows. If they do ask what the deal is, assuming you've changed your name on your birth certificate, you can say there was an issue that called for a correction to your BC (which once again is common for people who were adopted or had other family dramas resulting in their name being changed). Another tip is if the information is asked on a sheet separate from the main application*, ask if you can send it directly to the investigator (if so, then go ahead and mention your past details on there); likewise if it's an online portal and you know it's being sent only to the investigators (if necessary you can ask someone from the site's support).

*For typical (non-security-clearance, non-federal) jobs, under FCRA, anytime they want to pull your credit history they have to follow that rule (asking it on a dedicated form).

[Jessica Merriman]

You may attract unwanted scrutiny if you make it very mysterious though. People tunnel in and want to know the why and a juicy piece of gossip like this will travel very quickly. Also if your background takes too long it may jeopardize the position you wanted with it going to someone who passes the background easier and without issue's. Just a thought. I would not make too big a deal of it if I were you. 

[tgchar21]

You may attract unwanted scrutiny if you make it very mysterious though. People tunnel in and want to know the why and a juicy piece of gossip like this will travel very quickly. Also if your background takes too long it may jeopardize the position you wanted with it going to someone who passes the background easier and without issue's. Just a thought. I would not make too big a deal of it if I were you. 

Even so, any questions should be confined to no further than the HR people and the ones interviewing the prospective employee (unless it's a small company, in which case unless it's for something like a federal contract that requires a clearance they probably wouldn't be doing such intensive background investigations anyway). It's not like gossip that would likely be heard by one's (potential future) co-workers.

[Jessica Merriman]

any questions should be confined to no further than the HR people and the ones interviewing the prospective employee

In a perfect world, yes. In todays?

[tgchar21]

In a perfect world, yes. In todays?

My philosophy is: Would you rather exercise your right not to divulge extraneous information and avoid being discriminated against to begin with, or have to do the hard exercise and prove after the fact that you were wrongly discriminated against? Although some may find the former like trying to hide a secret, I think you have better odds that way. (This is why for typical non-high-security jobs there's a whole set of questions that are illegal or taboo for employers to ask, and if you are asked one you have the right to answer in an alternate way that informs them of only what they need to know.*)

*Beyond (former) names other cases are what's your nationality (all they need to know here is that you're legally able to work in the U.S.) or your family plans (here all they need to know is that you're able to work the requisite schedule). Even a full date of birth can raise legal eyebrows unless there's an actual reason to know it (because of age discrimination the only concern is that you're of legal age for the job).

I know it's a bit different when a security clearance is at stake or for a position like one Jessica is in (in such a case, especially if dealing straight with the federal or other government, it may not be a big deal to out yourself if it's just to the higher-ups), but IMO my advice can be helpful with the majority of jobs.

[Jessica Merriman]

But the OP is referencing NASA, Aerospace and defense. Those are heavy hitters for extensive background (full disclosure) checks. That is why full disclosure is best. I served as a PMC and trust me, those who fudged, misled or failed to mention items were blacklisted permanently. 

[tgchar21]

But the OP is referencing NASA, Aerospace and defense. Those are heavy hitters for extensive background (full disclosure) checks. That is why full disclosure is best. I served as a PMC and trust me, those who fudged, misled or failed to mention items were blacklisted permanently. 

Hence the last sentence in my last post.

[Jessica Merriman]

Sorry, blonde moment!*giggle*