Susan's Place Transgender Resources

I'm applying to another job that requires a background investigation. On the form it asks for "Other Name(s) Used (Including Maiden Name)." The job application itself also asks for "Other names you have been known by, if any" right up at the top. Way to make me out myself.

Either I give my old name and out myself... or take the chance they'll turn it up anyway in the background investigation and deny me the job for not having told them everything.

If I out myself, there's a good chance I might be discriminated against in hiring.

If I don't put my old name, there's a chance they'll find it anyway. If they find it, there's a chance I wouldn't get hired because of that.

Where you sign the application at the bottom, it says "I hereby certify that the answers I have provided are complete and accurate to the best of my recollection and knowledge" and "...I also acknowledge that [employer] is specifically relying on the veracity of my answers and agree that any false or misleading answer may be a cause for disciplinary action up to, and including, termination of employment..." Which could be taken to mean if I left out my old name, and they caught me, they'd deny me the job? How likely is it that a background investigation would turn up my name change? What do they actually do for such an investigation?

What's a transsexual to do?

Get a private meeting with your potential boss/hr department explain the situation and request that the matter be kept in the strictest confidentailty. Keeping it secret and them finding out anyway is too much of a risk to take. That or you can try for another job with another company. But in this economy...

I think Susan is dead on. 

If you have extra money you could pay for your own background check and find out, but given that name changes are legal documents, and legal stuff is easy to find.....

Quote from: Susan on February 03, 2009, 07:00:07 PM
Get a private meeting with your potential boss/hr department explain the situation and request that the matter be kept in the strictest confidentailty.

At what point in the process? They will run the background investigation and look at the results before deciding to hire me.

On the other hand, this company is in Montgomery County, Maryland, which has a law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity in employment. Also, the company has a nondiscrimination policy including gender identity. So if they try to discriminate against me based on my gender identity, I can call them to account for it?

Winning such a lawsuit, particularly during the hiring process, particularly when I'm sure they have a huge amount of people applying for a few jobs, is all but impossible to prove.

Moreover - and I know this is not going to be popular but.... Filing lawsuits is a legal deal, and it shows up in background checks.  So if you are going to sue them, you better make damn sure you win, and win a lot of money, as the odds of some other company hiring you go down.

In my experience the name thing has never caused a problem. I always use my name, instead of my given name, and I've never even been questioned about it. But, I'm sure things are different there so I'd say take Susan's advice. Good luck!

You tell them. If they are doing any kind of background check at all it WILL come out, Hypatia. And the result of that will be that you will definitely not be hired, or if they have you'll be in the probationary period where they'll let you go period.

Go with Susan's suggestion. It's very sensible even if it seems like hell to you. Those of us who apply for and receive jobs that require background checks, and soon it will be every one even remotely professional I imagine, will do that or risk termination anyway for being "unreliable."

BTW, anything that does get turned up in the background check will be held by Human Resources. I would seriously doubt that if they hire you knowing the name change, etc that anyone is going to trumpet your history to the company. At some point that would cost them more morale-wise and maybe job-wise for someone suspected of doing so for it to be likely to occur.

Unless they do something incredibly stupid during the interview process a suit of the kind you wrote about is basically doomed to failure. Any conversations they have about prospects are not going to be dutifully recorded and available for an attorney to find in discovery.

Nichole

hi ....Hypatia.    this would depend on how out you are . or not wish to be . i would put the name you use on the paper . with a seperate note in a enverlope saying .   why . that you were known allso by another name . which you do not wish  to have put out to people who do not need to know giving your reasons why .
      you do not say if you have had a name change not your birth cert . just a deed poll name change .  i know there are some more ?? i would ask . this is enough .  any way just a thought
     ...noeleena...

Quote from: Nichole on February 04, 2009, 12:42:26 AM
Unless they do something incredibly stupid during the interview process a suit of the kind you wrote about is basically doomed to failure. Any conversations they have about prospects are not going to be dutifully recorded and available for an attorney to find in discovery.

I said nothing about a lawsuit. That was Tekla who started saying it. The words I used were "call them to account." Since this business is in Montgomery County, Maryland, I would first find out about how they enforce their gender identity nondiscrimination law. Also, since the company itself put a gender identity nondiscrimination policy right on its job application, I would find out how they internally enforce their policies.

My new female name is my legal name everywhere. I changed it on my birth certificate, Social Security, driver's license, and anyplace you could think of. My former name is history.

The point of calling them to account is to get some sort of legal finding that could be used to sue them.  Montgomery Co might fine them, but still you don't have a job (since I'm sure they have no legal mechanism to force the company to hire you). 

But, do not discount the ability of well funded computer and old fashioned record searches to find out just about anything.  All they need is one number, and you may have changed your name, your gender markers and such, but the SSN# stays the same, and that alone can, along with a fee, get you a hella lot of information.  If the company has some connection with the Feds, they can get all the information they would ever want.

I would disclose everything, if they stand true to there non-discriminatory policy then you will be OK, but if you fail to disclose that has nothing to do with discrimination and you simply will not get hired your best bet, full disclosure and somewhere somehow show them that they will be better off hiring you for qualities not bringing issues. Redirect there focus if you will...... Good luck ;)

My former name is history

True that, but it's YOUR history.  Which is what they are interested in.

I can't add anything more that hasn't been said, and I fully agree. Ask for a private meeting and explain things (as Susan said). Otherwise, they could easily find your old name and information. Remember old names in records aren't deleted, but simply moved to "fomerly known as..." or something similar in the database or paper file, and all the employer has to ask is, "Did the applicant have other names?" And remember not all records were changed, only those you requested. Some may still have your old name and identity.

And if you try to hide your past, as you noted, the statement on the bottom gives them the right to say, "You lied and you're fired.", and you have no grounds to protest or rights to sue. Is that a risk you want to take.

Good luck.

And remember not all records were changed, only those you requested. Some may still have your old name and identity.

They are changed, but legal records tend to note both, not just one.  Most places REQUIRE that a legal name change be PUBLISHED.  And that point of that is...just this.

As someone who went through not one, but TWO background checks and drug screenings for her current job, I would recommend that you DO NOT lie or with hold information on the background check. They WILL find it.

However, I was offered the job *prior* to the background check, so there may be an opportunity to contact the company's or government's HR dept and explain the situation before they run the check. I doubt they run checks on people they aren't going to hire or before the person accepts the position. It's too expensive that way.

Hope this helps and good luck with the job!

WR

I bet they do.  Its not the company policy, its the company's insurance policy that requires it.

Maybe some do, but I can definitely say not all. My background checks were not run until after I accepted my job. There was no way for them to do so because I was not asked to fill out the forms (or even had the forms) until the job offer was extended and I accepted.

IIRC, Dani's job was similar, although gov't education is sometimes different than straight gov't.

I still see no logic to them running a background check on all applicants, though. Why run an expensive procedure on a bunch of people you're not even going to talk to? Seriously. My government jobs had around 100 people apply. Where Dani works it's even more sometimes. Why run checks on 90+ people you aren't even going to interview? It makes no sense. And while government jobs tend to be low on "common sense" they really do pay attention when something costs money.

WR

Quote from: Windrider on February 04, 2009, 09:39:09 PM
Maybe some do, but I can definitely say not all. My background checks were not run until after I accepted my job. There was no way for them to do so because I was not asked to fill out the forms (or even had the forms) until the job offer was extended and I accepted.

IIRC, Dani's job was similar, although gov't education is sometimes different than straight gov't.

I still see no logic to them running a background check on all applicants, though. Why run an expensive procedure on a bunch of people you're not even going to talk to? Seriously. My government jobs had around 100 people apply. Where Dani works it's even more sometimes. Why run checks on 90+ people you aren't even going to interview? It makes no sense. And while government jobs tend to be low on "common sense" they really do pay attention when something costs money.

WR

Same for me, after I was offered my position I had a whole stack of forms to fill out background form was for local, state and federal background, security clearance forms that went as far back as my grandparents and there siblings......... I work for one of the alphabet FLEO's (Federal Law Enforcement Officers)

Back in the day such investigations were done for three reasons, national security, financial control and law enforcement.  Then anything doing with 'kids'.  Those all make sense.

When I worked for Bechtel they did one for me (on me?) so I could handle security documents, including stuff like wiring runs - including the security systems - for nuclear power plants.  OK, I can see that.  Likewise, anyone who is going to be handling a lot of money, or have control over a lot of money is going to have a credit check run on them.  After several cases got a lot of press where schools and day care centers had hired people with some sort of sex conviction, they became required for that too.

But its become more common to run them on just about everyone these days because of 'due diligence' on the part of the company and it's insurance carriers.  You would not think that like, oh, a janitor would need one, but a few years ago on the East Coast a girl was raped by a janitor in some big rock concert, who sued the company, now everyone gets one.

This is for a military contractor. Here in the DC area, pretty much everything in my line of work is federally related-- and most of that is contracted.

I was contacted by a recruiter who found my résumé on Monster.com. He first secured me the invitation to an interview. Then he sent me the application form and the background investigation consent form. I duly gave my old name, however much it galls me. Gritted my teeth and dealt with it like a big girl.

I went to the interview yesterday and I think it went well. Gender was not even hinted at in the slightest, it was purely about my professional qualifications and experience. They both called me "she" the whole way through. Thank Goddess we live in an era of growing enlightenment. Thanks for Dr. Dana Beyer too, who was the mover and shaker behind Montgomery County's gender identity nondiscrimination ordinance, and all the hardworking volunteers at Equality Maryland who fought to keep it.

hi    Hypatia that all sounds good . i was thinking hey are you a girl or a boy ... you know what i am saying they treated you as a person , now that is good . like it should be its your trade  .(( qual.s  )), things are looking up . slow it may be .  we will get there ......

                  ...noeleena...

The only place I had problems with my name change wasn't at jobs I was applying for, but when I applied at college.  Like within one day I got a call from their lead administrator and asked me sheepishly, "Did you uh.. ever go by any other names?"

I then explained it.  She told me that schools can find anything related to other schools.  Most likely they did this by checking my social. ;)

Glad it worked out for ya hon!

Well, I haven't been hired yet... I'm waiting to hear about that. Quite anxiously.

Here's hoping. I'll keep my fingers crossed for you.

Thanks!

Many years ago the company I worked for was taking on some DND contracts which required everyone to have a military security clearance. The form required a 25 year history which, for me, included pre-transition.

In the space for "any other names" I wrote "information available to authorized investigator only". I did get a call from a high ranking officer asking for an explanation. I told him the whole story. He was very understanding and went to great lengths to preserve my stealth, even using proper pronouns and names in every case. No one was ever the wiser.