How screwed am I?

[HesseJam]

You all live in a funny country.

In Germany you only need to disclose convictions if there is a close relation between the job and the crime. If you stole cash you have to disclose a conviction when applying for a cashiers job, etc.

Employers are allowed to ask and you are allowed to lie, which means that if it gets exposed to the Employer that you have been convicted for something unrelated to your job after you have been hired, this is no grounds for firing you because you lied about it during the interview.

But charges without any conviction? What is next? Random drug tests at work?

[ QUOTE ]
I've been charged with a federal crime and COULD have to do 5-10. It wasn't a violent crime or a sex crime, and didn't have anything to do with stealing money. What are the chances I'll get the job?

Keep in mind... I've only been CHARGED (i don't know if that matters)

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me echo and amplify what DespotInExile said here. You need to keep your eye on the ball. I worked in the Federal Court system for two years, and if there is one thing I learned is that folks who are indicted for drug conspiracies are screwed, and, in some ways, the low-level guys are screwed most of all.

The mid-level guys will have lots of useful information that the government wants and needs to nail the top-level guys. So they get the best deals. The top level guys have tons of money for the top defense attorneys, plus in a desperate pinch they can give up their overseas suppliers. Sometimes they go down but it was also amazing to me to see how often they got deals, as well -- not deals that got them out of doing time, mind you, but deals that made the difference between hope of getting out with part of your life ahead of you and a certain life term.

The low-level guys often wait far too late to give information, and therefore don't have anything useful to the the AUSA. So they get the book thrown at them.

IMO, you should be talking with your lawyer about whether you should set up a meeting with the Govt. The Sentencing Guidelines reward cooperation and guilty pleas and punish folks that proclaim innocence, go to trial, and lose. Moreover, only the Government can give you the magic 5K1 letter that could enable you to avoid jail altogether even if you are guilty.

The fact that you are exploring job opportunities while this is going on suggest to me that your lawyer hasn't explained the facts of life to you yet.

[ QUOTE ]
yes, drugs. I got federally indicted with 24 other people. We don't have court again until September though. so i havent been convicted, but charged

[/ QUOTE ]

Landon--
I am a recruiter for an insurance and financial services company. I can tell you that they will find out about this pending charge and it wont matter that you havent been found guilty or innocent. Not only will the company find out, but you will have trouble getting your licenses with the state at all. Depending on which state you are trying to get your licenses in, they can ask you if you have any pending charges against you as well. IMO, it will serve you a lot better to be upfront about it and tell them the whole story, then to let them find out about it after the fact and them draw their own conclusions...Just my two cents...

MDoranD

[pokeraz]

[ QUOTE ]
Im sorry to be a dick, but in my experience, anybody who gets a federal indictment slapped on them is pretty damned guilty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Christ! I hope you never are asked to serve on a jury. Wake up.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm not a lawyer but I'm basically positive there is no federal law that prohibits an employer from:

- asking you if you've ever been arrested.

[/ QUOTE ]

Asking about arrest records has been viewed by the courts as a violation of anti-discrimination laws, since arrestees are overwhelmingly minorities.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tony, I respect you for the butter eating, but please dont give legal advice.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Im sorry to be a dick, but in my experience, anybody who gets a federal indictment slapped on them is pretty damned guilty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Christ! I hope you never are asked to serve on a jury. Wake up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I clerked on a federal appeals court and reviewed dozens of criminal appeals. I currently work as a white collar defense attorney. I know tons of AUSAs in various offices. I know what Im talking about.

When I say that "most indicted people are guilty", Im not talking about ignoring the presumption of innocence or the government's burden of proof. Im talking about the fact that federal prosecutors, in my experience, dont charge people unless they have overwhelmingly strong evidence. Borderline cases dont get charged. State prosecutors are different--they tend to overcharge crimes, even if they know the proof is thin or absent.

This guy really needs the 5K1 letter, and the longer he waits to get it, the less likely he will be able to. He needs to get himself a good lawyer, and stop worrying about whether he will be able to get a job selling insurance.

By the way, for all of you know-it-alls speculating about what a background check can/will reveal, it's pretty simple. For industries like the securities industry where a Form U4 is required by federal/state statute, the employment check will include a fingerprint card. The employer will submit for a check against NCIC, and if the OP has been through booking at any point in his life, he'll come back with a hit--arrested for X, under indictment, pending trial. Simple as that. This is not a "call your neighbor" type of background investigation.

Finally, for those of you who seem to have strong opinions about what employes "can do", let me clarify a common misconception. Employers hire or fire whoever they want, provided they are not basing their decision on an impermissible reason. The class of impermissible reasons is very narrow, and includes only traditional 14th Am. equal protection classes and/or statutorily created classes. So race, religion, martial status, physical disability, age, etc. all are prohibited criteria.

On the other hand, an employer can get rid of you for whatever reason he likes, including reasons like, "I dont hire Democrats." Or "I think you're ugly." Or "You have bad breath."

Deal with it.

[cokehead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm not a lawyer but I'm basically positive there is no federal law that prohibits an employer from:

- asking you if you've ever been arrested.

[/ QUOTE ]

Asking about arrest records has been viewed by the courts as a violation of anti-discrimination laws, since arrestees are overwhelmingly minorities.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tony, I respect you for the butter eating, but please dont give legal advice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I don't think that tony is that far off. if anyone is interested, they can look this article up, ALR, CONSIDERATION OF ARREST RECORD AS UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE VIOLATIVE OF TITLE VII OF CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 (42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000E ET SEQ.), 33 A.L.R. Fed. 263.

I still think that as a practical matter, OP is screwed.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm not a lawyer but I'm basically positive there is no federal law that prohibits an employer from:

- asking you if you've ever been arrested.

[/ QUOTE ]

Asking about arrest records has been viewed by the courts as a violation of anti-discrimination laws, since arrestees are overwhelmingly minorities.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tony, I respect you for the butter eating, but please dont give legal advice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I don't think that tony is that far off. if anyone is interested, they can look this article up, ALR, CONSIDERATION OF ARREST RECORD AS UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE VIOLATIVE OF TITLE VII OF CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 (42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000E ET SEQ.), 33 A.L.R. Fed. 263.

I still think that as a practical matter, OP is screwed.

[/ QUOTE ]

How lame to quote an ALR article whose title completely fails to address all of the issues relevant. If you're going to try and play lawyer, at least do some lawyering. Recognize, for starters, that the practice is NOT disallowed--Title VII merely gives a racial minority a basis to subsequently challenge the use of the criteria, if he is denied employment. In order to prevail in the Title VII action, plaintiff needs to be able to prove disparate impact/intent, and if successful here, then the relief is that the practice cannot be used. So if the OP isn't within a Title VII protected class, he can't even raise the argument to challenge the practice. Additionally, the employer has a number of defenses such as "business necessity" for the criteria, which if proven, trump the Title VII argument. So do me a favor and dont play lawyer with your free law student Westlaw account.

[mason55]

[ QUOTE ]
Says me. I have spent a good deal of the last 5 years studying federal employment law.

Maybe some employers do do this, not everyone follows the rules. If employers are basing hiring decisions on arrests and indictments, then they are setting themselves for a shitload of trouble down the line.

TONY

[/ QUOTE ]

Tony -

I'm sorry, but this is not true for everything. I know for absolute certainty that the federal government can base security clearance considerations off of whether or not you have been charged. In fact, the questions even ask "Have you ever been charged with a felony?" I realize that it's a special case, as it's the federal govt issuing security clearances, but for most people who need one, that basically will get them fired if they fail.

[tonypaladino]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Says me. I have spent a good deal of the last 5 years studying federal employment law.

Maybe some employers do do this, not everyone follows the rules. If employers are basing hiring decisions on arrests and indictments, then they are setting themselves for a shitload of trouble down the line.

TONY

[/ QUOTE ]

Tony -

I'm sorry, but this is not true for everything. I know for absolute certainty that the federal government can base security clearance considerations off of whether or not you have been charged. In fact, the questions even ask "Have you ever been charged with a felony?" I realize that it's a special case, as it's the federal govt issuing security clearances, but for most people who need one, that basically will get them fired if they fail.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, it's not true for everything. I am gerneralzing because this is some financial advisor job. Jobs that require certain levels of security, such as many government jobs are special cases.

(Also, I'm not agreeing with the fact that arrest questioning could be in violation of Civil Rights legislation, just stating that it's how some have viewed it)