Alexandra Zapp was just 30 years old the night convicted sex offender, Paul Leahy, took her life. Alexandra, or “Ally” as those who knew her called her, was on her way home from a charity sunset cruise when she decided to stop at a Burger King at a rest stop in Bridgewater, Massachusetts. It was after midnight, but before leaving the Burger King to continue on her way home, Ally used the restroom. As she exited the restroom, she was met by Paul Leahy. Leahy, 39, and more than twice Ally’s size, pushed her back into the restroom.

The carnage, discovered by an off-duty police officer who happened to be using the men’s room at the time, was hard to believe. Ally had been stabbed six times in the neck, another six times in the chest, and once in the chin. Leahy also sliced her arms, wrist, and one of her hands. He then discarded her in one of the stalls, blood pooling around her body. When off-duty state police Lieutenant opened the ladies room door, investigating the sounds of Ally’s scuffle with her attacker, he found Leahy at the sink. Leahy’s only words were “I lost it.”

Leahy worked at the Burger King Ally stopped at that night. Neither the night manager at the restaurant, and certainly not Ally herself, knew that Leahy was a repeat sex offender with more than 24 convictions under his belt. His convictions included rape, kidnapping, drug possession, breaking and entering, theft, drunk driving, assault, and more. Although prosecutors tried to have Leahy locked up as a dangerous sexual predator, the legal system had other plans. As a convicted sex offender, Leahy was required to register with the Sex Offender Registry Board, but only about 1,000 of the more than 18,000 convicted sex offenders who were required to do so at the time actually did. The state’s record of monitoring sex offenders was even worse. Leahy, like many sex offenders, lived unsupervised, untreated, and free to commit more crimes.

That night, July 17, 2002, should serve as a lesson to anyone who believes that they are safe within the confines of a business. Ally’s murder highlights not only the failure of the legal system to monitor and police dangerous offenders, it also stands as a prime example for employers who may be liable for the crimes their workers commit.

There is little doubt that Burger King would have liked to have avoided the liability and the negative publicity that Leahy’s crime brought. Ally fought hard against her attacker. She bit Leahy’s fingers, head-butted him, kicked, clawed, screamed, and scratched. In the end, it was Leahy who won that particular battle as he had so many times before with victims as young as 13.

Employers also need to fight hard; taking measures that ensure that the employees they hire are not only safe to work with but who also promote an environment that is safe for their customers. There’s no doubt that a solid employer background check policy would have prevented Ally’s death.

KevinConnell.com

Question by Kenny L: NC Pre-employment drug screening?
I’ve had a couple good interviews with a company. I received a call from the HR recruiter and he said – I must complete the drug screening/background check before an offer is made. I was told “there’s no point in making an offer when come to find out you fail the screening.”

Is this legal? I’ve changed jobs before and it has always been, offer made/accepted – then you go do the screenings/checks..

Did this company violate NC/federal laws?
Don’t get me wrong, I want the job and will pass any/all tests. I’ve just always accepted the offer, then a couple days later do the testing/screenings..

Best answer:

Answer by charmayns
It’s legal. They’re not breaking any laws. The fact that they’re testing you means that you’ve got the job as long as you pass. The hiring company must pay for those tests therefore, they’re only going to spend money on those that they think are worth. Clean up and pass the test. Good Luck!

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

Although many employers have a solid policy regarding pre-hire background checks, most have no policy in place that dictates a regular schedule of post-hire, or ongoing, background checks? Why is this issue? Well, from an employee standpoint, you’re certainly not going to tell your employer that you’ve committed a crime that might get you fired… if you can avoid it. But, from an employer standpoint, this is need-to-know information.

Unfortunately, far too often, individuals who have worked for one employer for any length of time commit crimes that may make them ineligible for employment with their current employer. Again, an employer can’t rely on the honesty and self-reporting of its employees to police the off-duty behavior of their workforce. Yet, in many cases, performing frequent background checks can be cost prohibitive.

To combat the problem, one large employer, whose employees have direct contact with children, sends out annual notices that employees must report any offenses that may render them ineligible to perform their employment duties as assigned. Certainly, this is one way to get the word out. But, honestly, does this employer, or any other workplace that adopts the annual notice technique, really expect their employees to call a confidential number to report their criminal behavior since they were hired? Not likely.

In reality, the annual notice sent out by the above employer is a cover-your-rear effort to avoid a lawsuit in case any of their employees is found to have violated the sacred bond of good moral conduct when working with children. The employer sends out a letter and can then say “hey, we asked!” The problem is – well, one of the problems – that such a weak effort of protecting their underage charges against a less-than-moral workforce is not likely to hold up in court.

It is the onus of the employer, not the employee, to ensure that their employees meet the standard of morality that is required of the job, whether that job involved working with children, money, or confidential information. When something goes wrong, as it inevitably will, it is not the employee that ends up on the financial hot seat; it’s the employer.

Sure, the employee will have to pay the piper in a criminal court, but it is the employer who harbored said criminal employee that will lose revenue and reputation because of their own lack of conscientious monitoring of their own staff. After all, if you are a parent whose child has been violated by a predator, do you sue the employee who has no money or the employer who has the financial resources to pay up?

Finding oneself in such a situation is not only embarrassing and expensive; it can completely ruin your company’s reputation. Although there is no way to immediately ensure that you catch an employee’s indiscretion as soon as it happens, you can protect yourself by developing a company policy that requires regular background checks on your employees. Companies that have initiated background checks on an annual, bi-annual, or even every five year basis have had some success in weeding out the bad apples that may cause them serious legal issues down the road.

Question by Louie: What does it mean to “successfully pass a background check”?
A lot of employers require the candidate “to successsfully pass a criminal background check”, however, they are never specific as to what this constitutes. Of course, if you just did 10 years for rape or 20 years for murder, you’re not going to pass. Also, any prior felony conviction will usually be adequate to disqualify you.

But what about misdemeanors or ordinance offenses? Or felony arrests that did not result in conviction? Is it just really company policy when it comes to these less serious matters?
Yes, glock I understand those are the things that show up, but what needs to be on there to “fail”? It probably depends on the company and the position???

Best answer:

Answer by glock310
i have seen things such as probation for previous arrests and crimes and also such things as speeding or any traffic violations and also credit history as well and previous employment

Give your answer to this question below!