MODULE 36: Background Checks and Social Networking
Websites
Core Module Issues:
• Should a company look at Facebook pages when making hiring
decisions?
• If so, what kinds of postings should hurt an applicant’s chances of
being hired?
Module Teaching Notes
This is another student favorite. Every one of them has a Facebook page, and many, after this module, are
at least somewhat concerned about some parts of their pages.
There is no new lecture information to present. Just remind the class that companies can, if they wish, do
the kind of things that the characters in the module do.
There is a video clip to accompany this module [“Facebook” in the South-Western Digital Video Library
“Business Ethics” series]. To access the DVL, log in to your Cengage Faculty Account at
login.cengage.com, select “Digital Video Library Instant Access Code” when you add the Bredeson text to
your Bookshelf, and then click on the “Business Law Digital Video Library Online Access” link under
“Additional Resources”.
Roll it, and then start the discussion.
Discussion Points for Scenario Questions
1. Is it reasonable for employers to screen applicants by searching social networking sights in
the first place?
Completely Reasonable ———————→ Absolutely Unfair
1 —– 2 —– 3 —– 4 —– 5 —– 6 —– 7
A. UNFAIR – BUT SHOULDN’T THEY BE ABLE TO FIND OUT AS MUCH AS
POSSIBLE ABOUT POTENTIAL HIRES, TO SEE IF THE PERSON IS A GOOD
FIT?
2. Which (if any) of the applicants should have Abby’s report held against him or her? In other
words, which applicants (if any) should have at least a somewhat lower chance of being hired?
3. In the scenario, Dale ranked the applicants according to the left column. In the blank column
to the right, give your assessment of how Jim should rank the candidates taking the information
from Abby’s report into account. (The top three will be made offers.)
Dale’s Rankings (potential problem) Jim’s Rankings should be…
1. Franklin (hate group tattoo) *1. ____________________________
2. Evans (angry-looking) *2. ____________________________
3. Cooper (topless photo) *3. ____________________________
4. Baker (lots of party photos) 4. _____________________________
5. Anderson (mild) 5. _____________________________
6. Daniels (sarcastic tweet) 6. _____________________________
7. Gordon (no information) 7. _____________________________
A. WHAT WERE YOUR TOP THREE?
B. WERE YOUR TOP THREE DIFFERENT THAN DALE’S TOP 3? IF SO, WHY?
4. Assume now that the seven people listed above already work for the company in the scenario
and that Jim is given the same information. Should he discipline or fire any of them if they are
current employees who are doing a good job?
A. YES – ISN’T IT DIFFERENT IF SOMEONE ALREADY HAS A “TRACK
RECORD” WITH THE COMPANY?
5. Would it reasonable for a university to screen applicants in this way, by searching social
networking sights?
Completely Reasonable ———————→ Absolutely Unfair
1 —– 2 —– 3 —– 4 —– 5 —– 6 —– 7
A. UNREASONABLE – WOULD YOUR OWN ADMISSIONS CHANCES HAVE
BEEN HARMED?