Background Check Reveals Hiring Manager's Criminal Record Instead of Candidate's

Background check companies have one job: check the right person's background. A major background screening provider spectacularly failed at this when they accidentally pulled records for the hiring manager instead of the candidate.

The results were delivered to HR, the candidate, and the hiring manager himself. Chaos ensued. Lawyers got involved. The internet had a field day.

How This Glorious Mistake Happened

According to reports on HR.com, a financial services company was conducting a routine background check on a finalist candidate for a senior analyst position. They used a well-known background screening service (that's definitely getting sued, so we'll call them "TotallyReliableChecks Inc.").

The background check company somehow mixed up the candidate's information with the hiring manager's information. Instead of pulling records for "James Wilson, 34, of Portland, OR" (the candidate), they pulled records for "James Williamson, 42, of Portland, OR" (the hiring manager).

The system flagged several concerning findings:

• A DUI from 2019
• Two misdemeanor assault charges from 2015 (charges dropped)
• A felony theft charge from 2012 (pleaded down to misdemeanor, probation completed)
• Multiple traffic violations including suspended license

These results were automatically emailed to:

• The company's HR department
• The hiring manager (to review and approve the candidate)
• The candidate (as legally required in adverse action notices)

The hiring manager opened the email expecting to see the candidate's clean record. Instead, he saw his own criminal history laid out in bullet points with case numbers, dates, and jurisdictions.

He immediately contacted HR in a panic. Too late. HR had already seen it. So had the candidate.

The HR Department's Moment of Clarity

The HR director—let's call her "Michelle" because that's what she's called on the leaked Slack messages that somehow made it to Reddit—had an interesting reaction.

Her first message in the HR Slack channel: "Um... the background check came back for the analyst candidate. Except I think it's actually [hiring manager]'s record? Can someone confirm I'm reading this right?"

Second message: "Wait. [Hiring manager] has a FELONY THEFT CONVICTION? And he's been approving background checks for our finance team? For three years??"

Third message: "We might have a problem."

Fourth message: "We DEFINITELY have a problem."

According to sources familiar with the situation, the hiring manager had never disclosed his criminal record to the company. He'd been hired in 2020—right after his probation ended—and apparently nobody had run a background check on him because he was hired during the pandemic when the company was desperate and moving fast.

He'd spent three years as a hiring manager reviewing background checks and making hiring decisions for roles that required "clean criminal records." The irony was not lost on anyone.

The Candidate's Perspective: Pure Gold

The candidate—whose actual background was completely clean—received the adverse action notice via email. It included a detailed report of the hiring manager's criminal history along with a letter explaining that "concerning findings" had been discovered.

Confused, he called the background check company. They initially insisted the report was accurate and suggested he "dispute specific findings if they were incorrect."

He tried to explain that literally none of the findings were his. Wrong name, wrong birthday, wrong social security number, wrong person.

The background check company rep reportedly said: "Sir, I understand you're upset, but the records don't lie. Perhaps you've forgotten some incidents?"

The candidate then pointed out that the person in the report was named "James Williamson" and he was "James Wilson." Different last name. Different person. Different human being.

After 45 minutes on hold, a supervisor confirmed the error and promised a corrected report "within 3-5 business days."

The candidate, being a reasonable human with a sense of humor, forwarded the entire email chain to the HR director with a note: "I think there's been a mix-up. These aren't my records. But I'm very interested to know if this is my hiring manager's background, because that would be hilarious."

The Company Scrambles

Michelle from HR immediately launched an investigation. She pulled the hiring manager's original employment file and found... no background check. None. The company's policy required background checks for all employees, but somehow his had been skipped in the pandemic hiring chaos of 2020.

She then pulled the records of every person the hiring manager had rejected based on background check findings over the past three years. Approximately 47 candidates.

Several had been rejected for:

• Minor misdemeanors over 5 years old
• Traffic violations
• Dismissed charges that appeared in databases
• Non-violent offenses that had been expunged

Many of these were less serious than the hiring manager's own record.

One particularly egregious case: a candidate rejected for a "theft-related charge" that turned out to be a shoplifting incident from when they were 19 (they were now 34). The hiring manager—who had an actual felony theft conviction—had written in the rejection notes: "Criminal history is incompatible with our company values."

The legal department got very interested very quickly.

The Internet Weighs In

News of the incident leaked (probably from the candidate, bless him) and spread across recruiting Twitter, Reddit's r/recruitinghell, and LinkedIn.

Comments included:

"This is the most poetic justice I've ever seen in recruiting."

"Hiring manager with felony theft conviction rejecting people for minor offenses is chef's kiss levels of hypocrisy."

"The background check company actually did the candidate a favor by exposing this nonsense."

"Imagine being rejected for a job and finding out the person who rejected you has a worse record than you. I'd sue for discrimination."

Several employment lawyers chimed in suggesting that the company might face legal exposure for discriminatory hiring practices if the hiring manager applied standards to candidates that he himself didn't meet.

The Background Check Company's Response

TotallyReliableChecks Inc. issued a statement that was peak corporate nonsense:

"We take data accuracy extremely seriously. This incident resulted from a rare technical error in our matching algorithm. We have implemented additional verification protocols to prevent similar occurrences."

Translation: "Our system screwed up, we got caught, please don't sue us."

The company reportedly offered to conduct free background checks for all 47 candidates who were rejected by this hiring manager over the past three years. They also offered the candidate (James Wilson) a free year of credit monitoring and a $500 Amazon gift card.

Industry observers on SHRM forums noted that this is a surprisingly common problem—background check companies mix up similar names regularly, especially with common names like James Wilson/Williamson.

The Professional Background Screening Association recommends that companies use multiple identifying factors (name, DOB, SSN, address history) to prevent mix-ups, but cheaper background check services often skimp on verification to save money.

The Hiring Manager's Fate

The hiring manager was placed on administrative leave while the company investigated. According to Glassdoor reviews from current employees, he was eventually fired—not for his criminal record (which was old and he'd completed all legal requirements), but for failing to disclose it during hiring and for potentially discriminatory hiring practices.

The firing was also partly because he'd violated company policy by not undergoing a background check himself, and because the optics of a hiring manager with undisclosed convictions rejecting candidates for lesser offenses was legally indefensible.

His LinkedIn profile was quickly updated to "Seeking New Opportunities" before being deleted entirely.

The Candidate Got The Job (Obviously)

James Wilson—the candidate with the actually clean record—was offered the position. He accepted, negotiated a higher salary than originally offered (because he now had leverage), and reportedly asked during negotiations: "So, will I be working with [former hiring manager]?"

The HR director's response: "No, he's no longer with the company. You'll be reporting to someone else."

Wilson also insisted on a clause in his offer letter guaranteeing that his actual background check would be properly completed before his start date. The company agreed.

According to his LinkedIn post, he found the entire situation "absurdly funny" and has been dining out on the story at networking events.

The Bigger Issue Nobody Wants To Discuss

This incident accidentally exposed something recruiting professionals don't like to admit: background check standards are often arbitrary and discriminatory.

Research from the National Employment Law Project shows that criminal background checks disproportionately exclude qualified candidates, particularly people of color, based on outdated or irrelevant offenses.

Many companies apply blanket "no criminal record" policies without considering:

• How old the offense was
• Whether it's actually relevant to the job
• Whether the person has successfully rehabilitated
• Whether the conviction was even accurate

The hiring manager in this story is actually a perfect example. He had a criminal record, completed his sentence, stayed out of trouble for years, and was apparently good at his job. His record shouldn't have been disqualifying.

But the fact that he was rejecting other people for similar or lesser offenses while hiding his own history? That's the problem.

Where Things Stand

The company has revised its background check policies to be more nuanced and less automatically disqualifying. They've also started running background checks on all existing employees, including hiring managers.

The background check company is reportedly facing a lawsuit from at least one of the 47 rejected candidates who believes they were discriminatorily rejected based on standards the hiring manager didn't meet.

And James Wilson is happily employed, with a great story for job interviews when people ask him about "a time you dealt with unexpected obstacles in the hiring process."

The lesson for recruiters? Triple-check your background check results. Make sure you're checking the right person. And maybe don't let people with undisclosed criminal records make hiring decisions based on criminal background standards they themselves wouldn't pass.

Just a thought.