How to Safely Connect Online with Friends and Family

Author: PeopleFinders on September 8th, 2019

Spread the love

Social media has provided an incredible opportunity for people to connect with others. Whether you’re connecting with friends who you’ve never met in person (only on the internet), or you’re staying in contact with friends you’ve known for years in person, the internet has created a whole new way of interacting with other people. However, what do you do when someone takes advantage of your trust on social media?

It’s important to remember that, while beneficial in so many ways, the internet’s accessibility has also allowed scammers to proliferate across the Web.

So, say someone approaches you on a social media site claiming to be a long-lost relative or one of your nearly forgotten friends. Before taking that person at face value, take a step back. And take the time to:

  • Check out the person’s social media page
  • Go outside the social media platform to make contact
  • Try reverse image searches
  • Use an online people search

Check Out the Person’s Page

If the person approaching you is an actual friend or relative, you’d probably expect to see at least a handful of mutual friends. You’d also expect that person to have filled out their profile a bit, likely with some personal information, such as current city of residence and where he or she went to school. If you can’t find evidence of any of these things, that could be a red flag.

Essentially, you want that person’s profile to look “lived in.” If it’s new, tread carefully. Creating a social media profile that you’re going to use regularly takes a bit of time. Scammers want to reach as many people as possible in as little time as possible, so they may not put in much effort to fill things out.

Contact Your Friend Somewhere More Trusted

You can verify a person’s online identity by confirming it via other means: in person, via other other social media platforms, etc.

If an acquaintance from work requests to stay in contact via social media, but you feel uncomfortable about the situation, there’s no need to make an immediate decision. Instead, wait until you see that acquaintance again. That way, you know you’re talking to the actual person in question.

Even if you don’t see a friend regularly, you may be able to contact that person outside of the social media platform you’re currently using. Texts are a great option, although that’s not always possible if it’s a new acquaintance. If you’ve already confirmed other social media platforms with that person, you may be able to send a message on those platforms. It’s all about being creative.

Do Some Reverse Image Searches

If you’re like most people, the lack of a profile picture puts you on guard immediately. After all, without a profile picture, it’s much more likely that an account is merely a scammer.

So, having a profile picture means it’s likely to be real, right?

Not necessarily. A scammer could fill up an account with a profile picture and some general images with no problem. It only takes a quick image search to download pictures off the internet. That’s why you should run a reverse image search.

This technique is especially helpful if this scammer is pretending to be a long-lost family member. After all, you don’t necessarily know what that person would look like. If you see the image used in a variety of other contexts, it was probably just ripped off an image search page.

Use a People Search Engine

It’s not always easy to tell whether an identity claim is legitimate. That’s especially true in today’s age, where someone can download an image off the internet and use it for anything. Instead of trusting people, however, there are ways you can attempt to verify someone’s identity. One of these ways is with PeopleFinders.

Starting with a simple people search, PeopleFinders may be able to help you to verify that a person’s name matches with their social media images, that they actually live where their online profile says they do, and more. If information that you get from a person on social media clashes with whatever information you may have found on PeopleFinders, it’s a good idea to at least take a step back and be extra cautious.

Conclusion

Scammers are crafty. Just because someone claims to be your friend, that doesn’t mean it’s true. If you want to make sure you’re staying safe, especially in today’s technology-driven world, you need to make sure you do your own research. When you use PeopleFinders, you can try and do that research with just a few clicks.

Image attribution: creative soul – stock.adobe.com

Tags: , ,

Categorized in: Culture

Connections CSP Will Pay $550,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit

Human Services Provider Unlawfully Fired Employees Who Needed Medical Leave, Federal Agency Charged

WILMINGTON, Del. — Connections CSP, Inc., a Delaware corporation that provides services in Delaware’s correctional facilities and other state institutions, will pay $550,000 and furnish signif­icant equitable relief to resolve a disability
discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today. 

The EEOC charged that Connections unlawfully enforced an inflexible maximum leave policy. The company fired employees with disabilities who needed additional unpaid leave beyond the re­quired 12 weeks under the Family and Medical Leave Act
(FMLA). Connections also failed to provide other requested reasonable accommodations that would have allowed workers with disabilities to remain employed, such as reassignment to vacant positions. Instead, the EEOC said, Connections placed those
employees on FMLA leave and terminated them when their FMLA leave expired.

Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrimination based on disability. The ADA also requires an employer to provide reasonable accommodations, such as modifying leave policies to grant
additional unpaid leave or transferring an employee to a vacant position for which the employee is qualified, unless the employer can prove it would be an undue hardship. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Connections CSP, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00862) in
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware after first attempting to reach a pre-litiga­tion settlement through its conciliation process.

In addition to the $550,000 in monetary relief to five former employees, the three-year consent decree resolving the suit enjoins Connections from violating the ADA in the future. Connections will implement and disseminate a new reasonable
accommodation policy to all employees. Connections will provide training on the ADA, its reasonable accommodation policy and other federal anti-discrimination laws. The company will also post a notice regarding the settlement.

“This settlement should encourage all employers to review their leave policies because rigid maximum leave policies can be a barrier to the employment of workers with disabilities,” said Jamie R. Williamson, director of EEOC’s Philadelphia
District Office.

EEOC Regional Attorney Debra M. Lawrence added, “Federal law makes it clear: Employers must provide reasonable accommodations as needed, including modifying leave policies or reassign­ment to a vacant position, unless it would be an undue
hardship – which was not the case here. In addition to the monetary relief to compensate the class members for their losses, the comprehensive equitable relief serves to protect applicants and employees from disability discrimination.”

Addressing emerging and developing areas of law, including inflexible leave policies that discriminate against individuals with disabilities, is one of six national priorities identified by the EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan.

The EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office has jurisdiction over Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia and parts of New Jersey and Ohio. Attorneys in the EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office also prosecute discrimination cases in
Washington, D.C. and parts of Virginia.

The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by
subscribing to our email updates.

Labor Board Rejects Boeing Workers’ Micro-Bargaining Unit

A proposed bargaining unit at a South Carolina Boeing plant—which was limited to only two job classifications within an aircraft production line—wasn’t appropriate for a union election, according to a Sept. 9 National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruling. 

The ruling clarifies the board’s “community-of-interest” standard for determining whether a petitioned-for unit within a workplace is appropriate. The board said it will consider the following three points:

  • Whether the members of the petitioned-for unit share a community of interest with each other.
  • Whether the employees excluded from the unit have meaningfully distinct interests in the context of collective bargaining that outweigh similarities with unit members.
  • Whether the proposed unit meets guidelines that the board established for appropriate units in specific industries.

The board found that the mechanics in the proposed unit didn’t share an “internal community of interest” and didn’t have “sufficiently distinct interests” from other employees who were excluded from the petitioned-for unit. The board also noted that there were no appropriate-unit guidelines specific to the industry.

NLRB Chairman John Ring was joined by Marvin Kaplan and William Emanuel in the majority opinion. Lauren McFerran disagreed with the majority and said she would have found the petitioned-for unit appropriate.

We’ve rounded up articles and resources from SHRM Online and other trusted media outlets on the news.

Larger Unionization Efforts Failed

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) had failed to unionize about 2,700 workers at the South Carolina aircraft production plant. Thereafter, IAM attempted to represent a smaller group, and the NLRB’s regional director approved a bargaining unit made up of about 178 flight readiness technicians and flight readiness technician inspectors. But Boeing argued that the mechanics should be included in the larger community of workers and asked the board to review the decision and find the petitioned-for unit inappropriate.

Siding with Boeing, the board said the interests shared between the two job classifications were too disparate. They share the same terms and conditions of employment, skills and training, but they belonged to separate departments and had different reporting structures.

“Lacking an internal community of interest, the petitioned-for unit is inappropriate at the first step, and we need not continue the analysis any further,” the board said. However, the NLRB noted that the unit didn’t pass the second prong of the community-of-interest standard either. “Particularly compelling here is that … the employees in the petitioned-for unit have a high degree of functional integration with excluded employees on the employer’s 787 production line,” the board said. “We find that excluded production-and-maintenance employees would largely have the same interests.”

(NLRB)

SHRM Supports Boeing’s Efforts to Reconsider Micro-Bargaining Unit

The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) has long been concerned about the impact that fractured bargaining units have on the operations of a company as employers juggle multiple collective bargaining agreements within the same workplace. Bargaining with several subsets of employee-unions is particularly difficult in an integrated manufacturing setting such as the Boeing plant. Allowing for incremental organizing of a company through micro-bargaining units also disenfranchises dissenting employees who may be in the majority in defeating a larger unit but find themselves marginalized within a small unit.

(SHRM Online)

Problems with Multiple Bargaining Agreements

Juggling multiple bargaining agreements with different small bargaining units within an organization could overwhelm businesses. Employers could lose operational flexibility as workers from one department might not be able to pick up shifts in another if different unions represented the different departments. Employees also might not be able to perform work assigned to another unit if there are micro-bargaining units present, reducing skill-building, training and job opportunities. Cross training, promotions and transfers all would be hindered by barriers created by multiple smaller bargaining units, according to a friend-of-the court brief SHRM filed in the case.

(SHRM Online)

[SHRM members-only HR Q&A:  What is the function of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)?]

Return to Community-of-Interest Standard

In a 2017 decision, PCC Structurals, Inc., the NLRB announced its “return to the traditional community-of-interest standard that [it] has applied throughout most of its history.” In that case, the board voted by a 3-2 margin to overturn the Obama board’s Specialty Healthcare micro-bargaining unit decision. In PCC Structurals, the board said that it would return to scrutinizing petitioned-for bargaining units on a case-by-case basis to determine if they are appropriate. Specialty Healthcare required that employers objecting to petitioned-for bargaining units show that employees excluded from the units share an “overwhelming” community of interest with those workers in the petitioned-for units.

(SHRM Online)

More Business-Friendly Standards

The NLRB’s Republican majority has recently rolled back or considered revising certain Obama-era rules in favor of more business-friendly standards. For instance, the board is having second thoughts about some of its earlier decisions that shocked the business community by finding certain profane and racially offensive outbursts are protected by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

(SHRM Online)

EEOC Sues Union Pacific Railroad for Disability Discrimination

Railroad Company Refuses to Allow Employee Who Once Had Brain Tumor to Return to Work as Custodian, Federal Agency Charges

CHICAGO – Union Pacific Railroad Company is violating federal law by refusing to return an employee who once had a brain tumor to work as a custodian, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Union Pacific imposed unlawful restrictions on an employee who once had a brain tumor and then used those restrictions to justify its refusal to allow the employee to return to work as a custodian, a position
Union Pacific claims is “safety-critical.” Without assessing the employee individually, and based solely on the employee’s history of having a tumor removed, Union Pacific instituted blanket restrictions out of unfounded fears that the employee
would suffer from sudden incapacitation due to seizures, according to the EEOC. Union Pacific ignored the employee’s own doctors’ assessments that the employee was not at risk for sudden incapacitation and evidence that the employee fully recovered
and had never had a seizure post-hospitalization, EEOC alleges.

Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits workplace discrimination, including failure to return to work employees who are regarded as disabled but can perform the essential duties of an available job. The
EEOC filed suit, EEOC v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-06021, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation
process.

“Employers cannot impose restrictions on employees based on unreasonable fears. Rather, any restrictions must rely on an individualized assessment, based on reasonable medical evidence, of an employee’s ability to perform the essential functions
of the job safely,” said Julianne Bowman, the EEOC’s district director in Chicago. “The EEOC is committed to the removal of unnecessary and discriminatory barriers to employment for employees who are regarded as disabled or based on their record of
having a past disability.”

Gregory Gochanour, EEOC’s regional attorney in Chicago, added, “Union Pacific refuses to employ anyone who has had a brain tumor removed in any job it considers ‘safety-critical.’ Blanket exclusions of this type are unlawful under the Americans
with Disabilities Act. The EEOC will continue to enforce federal anti-discrimination laws against employers that impose unlawful restrictions on employees and prevent their return to gainful work.”

The EEOC’s Chicago District Office is responsible for processing charges of discrimination, administrative enforcement and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and North and South Dakota, with Area Offices in
Milwaukee and Minneapolis.

The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available on its website at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC
news by subscribing to our email updates.

How to Keep Your Kids Safe at School This Year

Author: PeopleFinders on September 6th, 2019

Spread the love

As your kids go back to school, you’re probably wondering how you can keep them safe. If they use the school bus, you may worry about them walking to and from the bus stop (or even all the way to school, depending on where your house is located). Problems at school, whether physical or emotional, are always a concern. Schoolyard bullying is still a big issue, and it’s important that you address that.

How do you tackle these issues, and make sure your child is as safe as possible? As your kids integrate into the 2019-2020 school year, try these basic things:

  • Teach them how to stay safe from “everyday” dangers
  • Make it okay for them to talk about bad things they’ve witnessed
  • Help them to work problems out on their own
  • Use code words
  • Check out their friends’ parents

Teach Them the Basics

Safety-wise, you first need to make sure your kids have a handle on the basics (which they can then hopefully apply to other situations as needed). Basic safety issues include things like looking both ways and using the crosswalk when crossing the street, always paying attention to surroundings, and not talking to strangers.

When it comes to your teaching approach, you should avoid making these small lessons alarmist or dramatic. After all, you want to teach your kids to be proactive and diligent, not fearful and paranoid. Try to keep the focus on how to prepare for possible danger, not about how terrible and dangerous the world is.

Let Them Know It’s Okay to Tattle

Too many parents and teachers tell kids, “Don’t be a tattletale,” without thinking of the ramifications behind that sentence.

Sure, you’re probably just referring to matters you feel are inconsequential. But if you tell your kids not to tattle, and you don’t qualify that statement, what they may actually hear is that they shouldn’t tell adults about anything.

Instead, you want to reinforce that when they really think something bad is happening, it’s important to tell a trusted adult. By teaching your kids to disclose important information, you’re also teaching them about honesty. Moreover, you’re helping to ensure they don’t end up in a dangerous situation just because they weren’t willing to talk about it.

Make Them Self-Reliant

Yes, it’s good to tell kids to be honest and open about things that make them uncomfortable or scared. But it’s equally important to teach them how to resolve conflicts. That doesn’t mean telling them that their problems are insignificant. It means guiding them to a resolution on their own, so that they know how to do it next time.

If your child comes to you and says that someone on the playground stole a toy, you can help brainstorm a solution. By working together, you’re building bridges and creating emotional intelligence in your child, which is important as he or she grows up.

Create a Code Word

This is a time-tested technique that parents have used to create safety nets for their kids, and it works even with very young kids. What you need to do is create a phrase that’s easy to remember, but hard to guess. Make sure everyone in your family knows it. Then, if you do need to have someone unfamiliar pick up your child, you can give that person the code word.

This may help to thwart kidnapping attempts, where a stranger claims that a child’s relatives said it was okay to pick him or her up. Teach your children that if anyone claims to be approved by you or other relatives, they need to ask for the code word before getting in the car.

Check on Their Friends’ Parents

Sometimes, it’s not your child’s classmates that you have to worry about; it’s their parents. Although not a common occurrence, it’s not unheard of for friends’ parents to be dangerous for your kids to be around. You need to make sure the parents around your child are safe to associate with. For that, one thing you can try is PeopleFinders.

PeopleFinders is a great option for when you want to try and make sure your kids are safe in the care of other parents. To get started, all you have to do is attempt to perform a criminal records search using the parent’s first and last name, city and state.

Once you’re sure you’ve found the right person, you may have the option of accessing deeper criminal records info, including sex offender status, arrest records, and other related records. If you are able to get that kind of information, you can then use it to help decide whether or not it’s okay to send your kids over to play.

Conclusion

It’s true that there’s no surefire way to make sure your children are never in a dangerous situation. However, by teaching them how to stay safe, and using PeopleFinders to try and check on other parents, you have a much better chance.

Image attribution: davit85 – stock.adobe.com

Tags: , , ,

Categorized in: Safety

Does the FCRA Apply to Background Checks for Independent Contractors?

​Does the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) apply to the employment background checks of independent contractors? It depends on whom you ask. Recent court decisions have held that it does not, but the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has not budged on its stance that employees and nontraditional workers alike are protected under the FCRA.

Because there’s no clear answer, experts recommend a hybrid compliance model to avoid misclassification liability.

The Issue  

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia is the latest to rule that screening independent contractors does not trigger the requirements for a background check for “employment purposes” under the law. Those requirements include obtaining the person’s written authorization in a stand-alone disclosure and providing a pre-adverse action notice and summary of rights if the report leads to adverse action against the subject.

“It’s an unsettled area, and the recent decisions don’t align with the FTC guidance on this issue,” said Alonzo Martinez, associate counsel for compliance at background-screening firm HireRight.

Tyler Browne, lead product counsel at Checkr, a screening firm known for having gig-economy companies as clients, explained that certain provisions of the FCRA apply regardless of whether screened individuals are classified as employees or independent contractors. “Some form of consent is still required, and consumer reporting agencies still have an obligation to prepare accurate reports,” he said. “But employment-purpose screenings entail much more substantial requirements.”

He added that the FTC’s advisory opinions have generally stated that employment provisions should be applied broadly, to more than the traditional employment classifications, but recently, some courts have taken a more plain-text approach to the language in the FCRA.

Beginning with a case in 2012 (Lamson v. EMS Energy Mktg. Serv. Inc.), a handful of district courts have ruled that the FCRA defines “employment purposes” as “used for the purpose of evaluating consumers for employment … as an employee.” The Georgia court decided that “ultimately, because employee or employment is not otherwise defined in FCRA, this court is required to apply the common law meaning of employment, which does not include independent contractors.”

The FTC has not responded to this trend in case law, but it has issued contrary guidance in the past, said Rod Fliegel, an attorney in the San Francisco office of employment law firm Littler.

The agency issued a document in 2011 compiling several opinion letter summaries and that broadly construed that the FCRA’s permissible employment purpose may extend to nontraditional workers who are not technically employees, such as independent contractors, freelancers, temps and volunteers.  

[SHRM members-only toolkit: Conducting Background Investigations and Reference Checks] 

What Should HR Do?

Traditionally, many employers have played it safe and applied the FCRA’s requirements to all applicants, regardless of their employment status. But as more courts rule that employers do not have to comply with all employment-purpose requirements when screening independent contractors, employers question whether they should continue to screen these workers as “employees”—in light of increased misclassification claims.

“The rub is that complying with the FCRA’s employment-purpose screening provisions may be seen to give the appearance that employers are creating evidence that they are treating their independent contractors like employees,” Fliegel said. “On the other hand, if you don’t comply with the FCRA because you’re worried about misclassification, do you run into an FCRA lawsuit? If, as an employer, I’m seeing the high volume of FCRA class actions, how much comfort do I have in relying on a handful of district court opinions?”

The decision an organization makes will likely depend on its workforce composition and how it balances competing interests.

“I think employers need to adopt a hybrid compliance model,” Martinez said. He added that employers should create a separate screening policy for independent contractors in which HR provides disclosure and attains authorization from the worker under a nonemployment permissible purpose, such as the option to screen “with the written instructions of the consumer.”  

“Then follow the FCRA’s employment-purpose pre-adverse and adverse action requirements as applicable, providing the opportunity to review the report and offering an opportunity to dispute the accuracy or completeness of the report prior to taking final adverse action,” he said.

Modifying forms to refer to the worker as an independent contractor and not as an employee while also complying with the employment-purpose provisions of the FCRA should cover both bases, experts agreed.

“In practice, this means providing written disclosures in a stand-alone document but perhaps removing the word ’employee’ and replacing it with something that better defines the relationship,” Browne said.

Fliegel explained, “Some companies will follow the FCRA procedures for employees and independent contractors alike, because at the end of the day, the FCRA requirements are not that onerous. They add transparency to the process.”

He cautioned that some courts may still read employment purposes broadly and apply the FCRA’s protections to independent contractors. In those cases, the court may conduct an inquiry into the worker’s relationship with the organization.

“Employers and consumer reporting agencies are best served by taking a broad view of potentially relevant documents for independent contractor screening compliance,” Fliegel said.

Courts may review application documents, employment agreements and contracts, background-check disclosures and authorizations, and any evidence regarding the job.

EEOC Sues KU Medical Center for Firing Whistleblower Who Exposed Age Discrimination

Department Retaliated When Manager Reported Age Bias in Hiring, Federal Agency Charges

ST. LOUIS – The University of Kansas Medical Center (KUMC) violated federal law when it discharged a manager who alerted officials that his department head instructed staff to give hiring preference to millennials over older applicants, the U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit today.

According to the EEOC, in 2014, KUMC’s associate vice chancellor for information resources and chief information officer advised managers in the information resources department to focus on hiring younger people. After Jeffrey Thomas, who
supervised the IT help desk, reported the age bias to KUMC officials, the vice chancellor ordered a reorganization of the information resources department and eliminated Thomas’s position, resulting in his termination. Later, an internal
investigation con­firmed Thomas’s allegations and identified at least one instance where an applicant was not hired because of her age.

Such alleged conduct violates the anti-retaliation provisions of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, which prohibits employers from taking negative actions against employees who report age discrimination by their employer. The EEOC
filed its lawsuit (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. University of Kansas, Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-02540), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The EEOC seeks monetary relief for Thomas, liquidated damages, and an order
preventing future retaliatory conduct.

“Hiring discrimination is one of the most difficult types of employment discrimination to identify because applicants almost never know the reason they were not selected for a job,” said Andrea G. Baran, the EEOC’s regional attorney in St. Louis. “Individuals like Mr. Thomas should be com­mended – and protected from retaliation – for standing up against discriminatory hiring practices.”

L. Jack Vasquez, Jr., director of the EEOC’s St. Louis District Office, said, “Ending retaliation against employees who report discrimination is one of the EEOC’s top priorities. Unfortunately, age discrimination has become all too common in the
workplace, and it is to Mr. Thomas’s credit that he was willing to stand up to oppose it.”

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. The St. Louis District Office oversees Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma and a portion of southern Illinois.

The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by
subscribing to our email updates.

Are Robocalls Illegal?

Author: PeopleFinders on September 6th, 2019

Spread the love

It seems like robocalls are one of the biggest technological annoyances of the 21st century. People are getting more robocalls than ever, sometimes several each day. To use the old vernacular, your phone may be ringing off the hook!

There are so many unwanted robocalls floating around. You may wonder why. Are these companies even allowed to call you like this? Can you report them for doing so? Here’s the rundown on who is allowed to robocall you and who isn’t.

Allowed: Companies That You’ve Given Consent To

Although it sounds like it covers a wide swath, this requirement is actually much stricter than you might think. In many circumstances, you’re required to accept certain types of communication with companies to receive a product or service. Or you may agree to a blanket use of general communication, in case you need information about something.

Per the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), for a company to use robocalls legally, you have to explicitly agree to that format. And it can’t be a requirement for any service. The company must also allow you to change your consent at any time.

That means that robocalls from law-abiding companies are relatively infrequent.

Allowed: Politicians/Political Parties and Charities

These kinds of robocalls are allowable even if you haven’t interacted with the people calling beforehand. Political calls can be prerecorded, as can charitable calls. However, if a charity outsources its robocalls to a third party, calls can only be sent to people who’ve previously interacted with the charity.

There are a few examples of legal robocalls in this category. If a politician is running in your area, you may receive a legal prerecorded message about it, which may also include some information about the politician. If you’re registered with a specific political party, that party may robocall you to remind you to vote, let you know about political issues, or otherwise keep you informed. Lastly, if a charity is trying to raise money, you may receive a robocall asking for donations.

Allowed: Informational, Non-Sales Calls

This option is mainly used to inform you about upcoming appointments or let you know about important public information. The important thing to remember here is that the company in question can’t be selling anything to you.

If the robocall comes from a company, it’s usually to remind you about something. Healthcare companies may provide you with reminders for doctor appointments. Pharmacies may let you know your prescriptions have been filled. Or your cable company may remind you about an installation.

The call could also come from public organizations. For example, if there’s an important warning, you may receive a robocall from local government agencies letting you know about it.

Not Allowed: Companies You Haven’t Given Permission To

If you haven’t given written permission to a company, and they still use a robocall to try to sell you something, it’s almost always a scam. Most of the time, the call is actually from a scammer trying to gain your trust, not from a legally run business.

These robocalls are usually easy to spot, and your best bet is to hang up the phone. Although it can be annoying to have your phone ring in the first place, they can’t scam you if you don’t listen to the message. Don’t press any buttons that claim to take you off a call list; just hang up.

How Can I Know Before I Pick Up the Phone?

You may be able to pinpoint an illegal robocall after you pick up the phone. But the better option is to not get into that position in the first place. To try and keep yourself safer from potential scammers, you can use PeopleFinders.

With PeopleFinders, you don’t necessarily have to pick up to find out who’s calling you. As soon as you get the call, you can perform a reverse phone lookup on the number to try and find out who owns it. If you discover it’s a number associated with a scammer or an unscrupulous company, just reject the call; it’s that easy.

Conclusion

Some politicians are working to create legislation that will make it easier to manage robocalls. In the meantime, robocalls are still an annoyance. With PeopleFinders, you can at least try and make sure that that annoyance doesn’t turn into a scam.

Image attribution: LIGHTFIELD STUDIOS – stock.adobe.com

Tags: ,

Categorized in: News

Are Your Partner’s Apps Really Innocent?

Author: PeopleFinders on August 30th, 2019

Spread the love

When you think about incriminating behaviors on mobile devices, you probably think of sexy photos, texts, or instant messages in easily noticeable places like dating apps, a built-in photo app, or texting app. If you’re worried that your partner is cheating on you, those are probably the things you’re going to pay attention to.

However, if your partner has thought through hiding the infidelity well, there’s a chance that other kinds of apps could be hiding valuable information. Worried that your partner is engaging in a technology-fueled affair? Then do your research to make sure it doesn’t go unnoticed by:

  • Looking for the presence of “innocent” apps
  • Observing their social media behavior
  • Finding out who’s on the other end of a phone call

Innocent-Looking Apps Can Be Hiding Information

One of the most worrying things is the possibility that an innocent-looking app can contain incriminating photos and messages. Vault apps are apps that look like an innocent calculator or accessories folder. But they actually function as a place to store documents and photos. Some of them also have a built-in internet browser, which ensures that the history in the phone’s built-in browser is squeaky clean.

Browse the App Store or Google Play Store to see some of the vault apps available (also called hidden apps or ghost apps). That way, you’ll be able to know what some of the app icons look like. If you see any of those apps on your partner’s phone, you’ll know that there’s some secret content there, which may be evidence of cheating. Although you won’t be able to access that content without a passcode, it’s a good indicator that your suspicions are founded.

Your Partner’s Social Media Habits May Be Suspicious

Social media is by far the most common way that cheaters get in contact with new partners. Whether it’s a flirty message on Instagram or a full-fledged affair carried out through Snapchat, it’s possible that the social media apps on your partner’s phone are providing a way to cheat.

It’s true that your partner could be using social media responsibly. (After all, it’s a great way to stay in touch with friends and family that you don’t see in person very frequently.) However, it’s also a constant source of temptation for many people.

Plenty of warning signs signal an online affair. If you’re worried that your partner is cheating on you via social media, it’s a good idea to keep an eye on the outward signs. Does your partner suddenly have many more Facebook friends or followers that you don’t know? Is he or she suddenly very possessive of phones and tablets? Do you notice that social media is a much bigger part of his or her life?

If you keep an eye out on these warning signs, you may find hints that there’s something happening.

You Can’t Rely Upon a Quick Scan

Even if you’re diligent, you can’t rely upon a quick look across your partner’s phone to know whether it’s a source of cheating. With vault apps available everywhere and affairs frequent on social media, something may be happening right in front of your eyes, even if you don’t notice it yet. The best way to try and find out who your partner is communicating with is to use PeopleFinders.

When your partner’s cell phone rings, if the person on the other side isn’t a contact, the phone number itself will show up on the screen. You don’t have to do anything illicit or immoral to see with whom your partner is conversing; simply wait for a number to show up and commit it to memory.

Then, use the PeopleFinders reverse phone lookup to try and see to whom that number belongs. Sure, it could just be a business partner or telemarketer. But if you see the same number coming up virtually every day, then you may want to do some further research on that person.

Conclusion

It’s hard to uncover cheating. But if you’re diligent, you can find hard evidence of a partner’s infidelity. You need to make sure you’re paying attention to everything, including potentially unmarked apps, strange social media habits, and calls from unlisted phone numbers. Using the tools at your disposal, like PeopleFinders, may help you get the evidence you need to confront your partner about their infidelity.

Image attribution: DragonImages – stock.adobe.com

Tags: , , ,

Categorized in: Relationships

New ‘Digest of EEO Law’ Issued by EEOC

Includes Key Federal Sector Decisions and Special Article on Determining Timely EEO Counselor Contact With Respect to Recurring Violations

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced the newest edition of the federal sector Digest of Equal Employment Opportunity Law (EEO Digest), is now available on the EEOC’s website at https://www.eeoc.gov/federal/digest/vol_3fy19.cfm.

“It is important for stakeholders to understand when informal claims of discrimination must be raised in order to be considered timely,” said Carlton M. Hadden, director of the EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations (OFO). “This article provides
information specifically on recurring violations which occur over a period of time.”

The EEO Digest, a quarterly publication prepared by OFO, features a wide variety of recent Commis­sion decisions and federal court cases of interest. The Digest also includes hyperlinks so stakeholders can easily access the
full decisions that have been summarized. This edition of the Digest contains summaries of note­worthy decisions issued by the EEOC, including cases involving attorneys’ fees, class certification, compensa­tory damages, and
complaint processing. It also includes cases discussing dismissals, findings on the merits, jurisdiction, mixed motive, official time, remedies, sanctions, settlement agreements, stating a claim, summary judgment, and timeliness.

The summaries are neither intended to be exhaustive or definitive as to the selected subject matter, nor are they to be given the legal weight of case law in citations. In addition to the quarterly Digest, Commission federal sector
decisions are available on the EEOC’s website.

The public may also receive federal sector information updates and news items via GovDelivery and Twitter. The EEOC advances opportunity in
the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov.  Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.