Candidates are often more honest in their LinkedIn profiles than in the resumes they send employers.

At least that’s what LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman said at the recent Social Recruiting Summit held at Google’s headquarters in Mountain View, CA.

The reasoning: Resumes are read only by a few people in a company who know nothing about the candidate. On the other hand, candidates might have hundreds of LinkedIn connections, and in theory, know or have worked with all of them.

Reid’s point: It’s hard to lie publicly in front of current or former colleagues.

Of course, LinkedIn profiles aren’t really replacements for resumes — most users don’t put the same detail into a profile, and there aren’t many versions tailored to different types of positions.

But some experts recommend finding a candidate’s profile to quickly make sure there aren’t glaring discrepancies in the info you received.

If there’s a type of job you’d think would automatically require a background check, it’s those that involve contact with children or the elderly. In fact, background checks for those positions are required by law in some states.

Not in Virginia, though, and the Cote De Neige Home for Adults in Newport News didn’t run checks for prospective nursing assistants.

The end result: The home hired Junious Boyd Batte, a convicted felon with a long criminal history including assault and battery.

Of course, without checking, the home didn’t know about the new employee’s past — until it came out that he’d sexually assaulted a resident.

The patient took the home to court for “negligent hiring.” The company was forced to pat $750,000 in damages.

Your company offers a candidate the job — then rescinds after his background check uncovers a felony conviction. He sues, claiming he was promised a job, quit his old position and bought a house in preparation to relocate. Who wins?

That’s what happened in one recent case:

A candidate, living in New Jersey at the time, was offered a job at Microsoft’s headquarters in Redmond, WA. He received a written offer letter, which stated his employment was at-will and the offer was conditional on a successful background check.

He also spoke with the hiring manager, who encouraged him to quit his current job and begin looking at houses in Washington. He recommended specific neighborhoods and gave him the name of a real estate agent to contact.

The candidate quit his job and purchased a house. However, his criminal background check uncovered a felony conviction, and he didn’t get the job after all.

He sued Microsoft, claiming the company asked him to leave his employer and move across the country under the promise of a new job.

Did manager promise a job?

Microsoft tried to have the case thrown out. It pointed to the letter, which told the candidate he would be an at-will employee and that the offer would be canceled if his background check didn’t come back clean.

But the judge didn’t buy it. The offer letter may have stated that the offer was conditional, but the hiring manager went too far in encouraging the candidate to relocate and helping him buy a house.

The company now faces an expensive trial or a hefty settlement.

The bottom line: Microsoft took the right steps in the wording of its offer letter. And the manager may have just been trying to help, but it’s best not to get involved in a potential employee’s personal affairs before the job offer is finalized.

Cite: Schley v. Microsoft Corp.

Here’s what background checks have uncovered about candidates in the past year, according to a report by ADP Employer Services:

• Out of all background checks performed, 10% revealed some negative factor
• 44% of credit checks found at least one bad mark on a candidate’s credit (many companies perform credit checks for jobs that involve finance)
• More than 33% of applicants had violations on their driving records
• 8% of candidates had a prior workers’ compensation claim, and
• 6% of all applicants had a criminal conviction in the past seven years.

Given how often those record checks turn up negative information (and how quickly many candidates will supply false info on an application), screening applicants in appropriate categories could be a wise investment.

Obviously, most people are blaming the new guy — but there’s no proof.

Furthermore, his background and references were thoroughly checked and came up clean. But that’s not enough for his new manager and co-workers, who want some action to be taken right away.

We asked three HR managers how they’d handle the problem:

Response #1: We’d address the issue in our employee newsletter — without pointing fingers at any specific employee. We’d just remind people not to leave valuables unattended. Raising awareness might be enough to stop future thefts.

Response #2: It sounds like we need to conduct a thorough investigation before deciding the new guy was to blame. I’d ask the victims where and when the items were taken and find out who would’ve had access to those areas at those times. Then I’d interview all the suspects to see what I could find out.

Response #3: First, I’d make sure a thorough background check was completed before the new employee was hired. Then I’d ask the manager to keep a close watch on him — without making accusations. It certainly sounds like the new guy is to blame, but we can’t take any action just yet.

If you were in the situation, what would you do? Let us know by leaving a comment below.

Those seeking a job in the next presidential administration must fill out a 7-page application with a total of 63 questions — including some things most HR pros and recruiters wouldn’t think about asking.

For example, applicants must:

• include any e-mails they’ve sent that could embarrass the President-elect
• list any aliases they’ve used to communicate on the Internet
• link to any blog posts, Facebook pages and other online profiles
• tell whether anyone in their family owns a gun
• identify any affiliation they or their family members have had with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and other institutions receiving a government bailout, and
• include any resume the applicant has used within the past 10 years.

And, just to be safe, the final question reads: “Please provide any other information, including information about other members of your family, that could suggest a conflict of interest or be a possible source of embarrassment to you, your family, or the President-elect.”

Experts in federal employment say the application process gets more thorough each time a new administration comes to town, in a attempt to avoid controversies previous presidents have faced.

As more job seekers hit the market and companies reduce hiring, the competition could fuel an increase in resume fraud, according to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal.

And it isn’t just lower level employees — several executives for top companies made news recently when it was discovered their resumes contained phony credentials.

One mistake many companies make: failing to ensure that third-party recruiting firms thoroughly vet candidates’ backgrounds.

Often there’s a miscommunication — both the company and the recruiter assume that background checking is the other party’s responsibility.

It’s one of HR’s worst nightmares: An employee’s injured after an attack by a co-worker. If it turns out the attacker had a history of violent behavior, can the company be sued for hiring him?

That question was asked in one recent court case. Here’s what happened:

An employee was sexually assaulted by her newly hired co-worker. The attacker had no criminal record, but during the investigation, it turned out that he’d been fired from his last job after groping a female employee.

The victim sued for “negligent hiring,” claiming the company should have known his history and never offered him a job.

On the other hand, the company argued it had thoroughly investigated his background and found nothing that would indicate he shouldn’t have been hired.

Background checks were clean

Who won the case?

Answer: The company.

The judge ruled in favor of the employer for two reasons:

• The criminal record check found nothing, and
• Reference checks were positive – The attacker’s previous employer failed to warn the company about any possible threat — in fact, his immediate supervisor gave him a glowing reference. And when asked why he left the company, the previous employer just said it was because he had a “dispute with a co-worker.”

Negligent hiring claim fails

HR did its job investigating the new hire’s background. There’s no way the company could’ve predicted the assault.

In negligent hiring cases, companies are only on the hook when they fail to perform a check — or see the warning signs and ignore them.

Cite: Groom v. Fresenius Medical Care North America, Inc.

About 22% of hiring managers say they look for job candidates’ profiles on social networking sites, according to a recent survey by CareerBuilder. That’s up from 11% who said they did so in 2006.

Also, 9% said they’re probably going to start using the Web to help in hiring decisions.

How are they using the information candidates post? Of the managers who check the sites, 34% said they’d found cause to remove an applicant from consideration. Most of the time, it was because the candidate talked about drinking or using drugs, posted inappropriate pictures or had noticeably poor communication skills.

On the other hand, roughly one quarter of those managers found info that solidified their decision to hire someone, such as background supporting their qualification for the job, creativity, diverse interests and a general professional appearance.

Any problems?

Of course, the big question on HR’s mind: Are there any legal dangers or other problems to worry about?

There is the possibility of a manager learning about a candidate being in protected class, which could result in a bias claim if the person isn’t hired.

Beyond legal concerns, there’s also the danger of mistaken identity, especially if the candidate has a common name. Also, some argue that what someone posts online won’t necessarily have anything to do with their job performance (even if they were dumb enough to put questionable items online in the first place).

What do you think? Have your managers ever checked out applicants on the Web? Do you think it’s a good idea, or a terrible one? Let us know by leaving a comment below.