Mixing
Is A Corporate Career Possible When Falsely Accused? [closed]
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
-3
down vote
favorite
A few friends and I discussed the recent case of Paul Nungesser, who's been accused of rape, yet was exonerated by the NYPD. I will not link the NC-17 texts, but I can see why the NYPD came to their conclusion, whether anyone agrees or disagrees. However, some media are treating Paul as if he's guilty and this raises the question of, "Who in corporate America would even hire him?"
For this question, I'm also thinking of people like the Duke Lacrosse players and Brian Banks (who served five years in prison - how would that look on a background check?).
Before anyone states self-employment as an option, this is an obvious alternative to a corporate career, and is completely outside the scope of this question. We all know that's an option and may be the only option Paul has. But from a corporate perspective, how would a candidate address what's happened when applying for a job and being asked about this if he was lucky enough to be granted an interview - as more than likely this will arise?
interviewing
asked May 21 '15 at 9:10
user541852587
1054
closed as primarily opinion-based by Jane S♦, scaaahu, gnat, David K, yochannah May 21 '15 at 16:33
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
-3
down vote
favorite
A few friends and I discussed the recent case of Paul Nungesser, who's been accused of rape, yet was exonerated by the NYPD. I will not link the NC-17 texts, but I can see why the NYPD came to their conclusion, whether anyone agrees or disagrees. However, some media are treating Paul as if he's guilty and this raises the question of, "Who in corporate America would even hire him?"
For this question, I'm also thinking of people like the Duke Lacrosse players and Brian Banks (who served five years in prison - how would that look on a background check?).
Before anyone states self-employment as an option, this is an obvious alternative to a corporate career, and is completely outside the scope of this question. We all know that's an option and may be the only option Paul has. But from a corporate perspective, how would a candidate address what's happened when applying for a job and being asked about this if he was lucky enough to be granted an interview - as more than likely this will arise?
interviewing
asked May 21 '15 at 9:10
user541852587
1054
closed as primarily opinion-based by Jane S♦, scaaahu, gnat, David K, yochannah May 21 '15 at 16:33
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
Whether he was falsely or correctly accused and rightly or wrongly exonerated doesn't really make a difference to his employment and career chances.
– gnasher729
May 21 '15 at 9:25
2
This is interesting yet completely unanswerable in this format. It's entirely opinion based. Voting to close.
– Jane S♦
May 21 '15 at 9:47
1
@gnasher729 You mean to say that the fact he has been accused at all is enough to destroy his employment/career chances.
– Jack
May 21 '15 at 9:50
2
@user541852587 It would depend on the country, the organisation, and whatever policies they have in place within that organisation. Some places would have no issue, others would. I would be very surprised if there was a global set of standards that cover this. Recruiters would discuss with the organisation their particular policy.
– Jane S♦
May 21 '15 at 10:54
2
This could be answered with science with a little change. For example, science has shown that one's name does influence a person's chance to be called back, even when the rest of the resume is the same. But the question should be 'what impact' instead of 'is it possible'.
– Lawtonfogle
May 21 '15 at 13:46
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
-3
down vote
favorite
up vote
-3
down vote
favorite
A few friends and I discussed the recent case of Paul Nungesser, who's been accused of rape, yet was exonerated by the NYPD. I will not link the NC-17 texts, but I can see why the NYPD came to their conclusion, whether anyone agrees or disagrees. However, some media are treating Paul as if he's guilty and this raises the question of, "Who in corporate America would even hire him?"
For this question, I'm also thinking of people like the Duke Lacrosse players and Brian Banks (who served five years in prison - how would that look on a background check?).
Before anyone states self-employment as an option, this is an obvious alternative to a corporate career, and is completely outside the scope of this question. We all know that's an option and may be the only option Paul has. But from a corporate perspective, how would a candidate address what's happened when applying for a job and being asked about this if he was lucky enough to be granted an interview - as more than likely this will arise?
interviewing
asked May 21 '15 at 9:10
user541852587
1054
A few friends and I discussed the recent case of Paul Nungesser, who's been accused of rape, yet was exonerated by the NYPD. I will not link the NC-17 texts, but I can see why the NYPD came to their conclusion, whether anyone agrees or disagrees. However, some media are treating Paul as if he's guilty and this raises the question of, "Who in corporate America would even hire him?"
For this question, I'm also thinking of people like the Duke Lacrosse players and Brian Banks (who served five years in prison - how would that look on a background check?).
Before anyone states self-employment as an option, this is an obvious alternative to a corporate career, and is completely outside the scope of this question. We all know that's an option and may be the only option Paul has. But from a corporate perspective, how would a candidate address what's happened when applying for a job and being asked about this if he was lucky enough to be granted an interview - as more than likely this will arise?
interviewing
asked May 21 '15 at 9:10
user541852587
1054
asked May 21 '15 at 9:10
user541852587
1054
asked May 21 '15 at 9:10
user541852587
1054
asked May 21 '15 at 9:10
user541852587
1054
1054
closed as primarily opinion-based by Jane S♦, scaaahu, gnat, David K, yochannah May 21 '15 at 16:33
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
closed as primarily opinion-based by Jane S♦, scaaahu, gnat, David K, yochannah May 21 '15 at 16:33
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
Whether he was falsely or correctly accused and rightly or wrongly exonerated doesn't really make a difference to his employment and career chances.
– gnasher729
May 21 '15 at 9:25
2
This is interesting yet completely unanswerable in this format. It's entirely opinion based. Voting to close.
– Jane S♦
May 21 '15 at 9:47
1
@gnasher729 You mean to say that the fact he has been accused at all is enough to destroy his employment/career chances.
– Jack
May 21 '15 at 9:50
2
@user541852587 It would depend on the country, the organisation, and whatever policies they have in place within that organisation. Some places would have no issue, others would. I would be very surprised if there was a global set of standards that cover this. Recruiters would discuss with the organisation their particular policy.
– Jane S♦
May 21 '15 at 10:54
2
This could be answered with science with a little change. For example, science has shown that one's name does influence a person's chance to be called back, even when the rest of the resume is the same. But the question should be 'what impact' instead of 'is it possible'.
– Lawtonfogle
May 21 '15 at 13:46
 |Â
show 2 more comments
Whether he was falsely or correctly accused and rightly or wrongly exonerated doesn't really make a difference to his employment and career chances.
– gnasher729
May 21 '15 at 9:25
2
This is interesting yet completely unanswerable in this format. It's entirely opinion based. Voting to close.
– Jane S♦
May 21 '15 at 9:47
1
@gnasher729 You mean to say that the fact he has been accused at all is enough to destroy his employment/career chances.
– Jack
May 21 '15 at 9:50
2
@user541852587 It would depend on the country, the organisation, and whatever policies they have in place within that organisation. Some places would have no issue, others would. I would be very surprised if there was a global set of standards that cover this. Recruiters would discuss with the organisation their particular policy.
– Jane S♦
May 21 '15 at 10:54
2
This could be answered with science with a little change. For example, science has shown that one's name does influence a person's chance to be called back, even when the rest of the resume is the same. But the question should be 'what impact' instead of 'is it possible'.
– Lawtonfogle
May 21 '15 at 13:46
Whether he was falsely or correctly accused and rightly or wrongly exonerated doesn't really make a difference to his employment and career chances.
– gnasher729
May 21 '15 at 9:25
Whether he was falsely or correctly accused and rightly or wrongly exonerated doesn't really make a difference to his employment and career chances.
– gnasher729
May 21 '15 at 9:25
2
2
This is interesting yet completely unanswerable in this format. It's entirely opinion based. Voting to close.
– Jane S♦
May 21 '15 at 9:47
This is interesting yet completely unanswerable in this format. It's entirely opinion based. Voting to close.
– Jane S♦
May 21 '15 at 9:47
1
1
@gnasher729 You mean to say that the fact he has been accused at all is enough to destroy his employment/career chances.
– Jack
May 21 '15 at 9:50
@gnasher729 You mean to say that the fact he has been accused at all is enough to destroy his employment/career chances.
– Jack
May 21 '15 at 9:50
2
2
@user541852587 It would depend on the country, the organisation, and whatever policies they have in place within that organisation. Some places would have no issue, others would. I would be very surprised if there was a global set of standards that cover this. Recruiters would discuss with the organisation their particular policy.
– Jane S♦
May 21 '15 at 10:54
@user541852587 It would depend on the country, the organisation, and whatever policies they have in place within that organisation. Some places would have no issue, others would. I would be very surprised if there was a global set of standards that cover this. Recruiters would discuss with the organisation their particular policy.
– Jane S♦
May 21 '15 at 10:54
2
2
This could be answered with science with a little change. For example, science has shown that one's name does influence a person's chance to be called back, even when the rest of the resume is the same. But the question should be 'what impact' instead of 'is it possible'.
– Lawtonfogle
May 21 '15 at 13:46
This could be answered with science with a little change. For example, science has shown that one's name does influence a person's chance to be called back, even when the rest of the resume is the same. But the question should be 'what impact' instead of 'is it possible'.
– Lawtonfogle
May 21 '15 at 13:46
 |Â
show 2 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
There is an impact to any negative publicity whether the charge is sustained or not or even when there is never a legal issue but just something that causes you to be negatively in the news (like a principal that recently got fired for racist remarks). However, that impact may be fairly short-term if the issue was not something everyone remembers (Imagine trying to get a job as Monica Lewinsky for instance). The news cycle is pretty fast for most things and stories are forgotten fairly quickly. If the negative news was local, then just looking in another city could help.
Background checks would generally only care about actual convictions or possibly pending cases. An exception might be school systems who are likely to not want to hire anyone accused of a sexual crime as they have duty to protect the students. A teacher falsely accused, might need to change professions.
If you are in such a situation where there is negative publicity, I think your absolute best bet is to use your own personal network to get a job. These are people who know you and would be more likely to trust that the negative information was incorrect.
If something seems politically motivated, you could also look to people who support your side of the issue. For instance, if you got negative publicity for not wanting to support gays getting married through your business and your business went under, there are plenty of other people who feel the same way who might be happy to hire you. In the case of an unfounded rape charge, there are men who don't really even believe rape is a real thing, they are more likely to hire a person wrongly charged than the hiring manager who has personally been raped. Social media can help you find the people who are sympathetic to your side of the issue. Again you would work with these people just like you would your original personal network to get a position outside the HR hiring process.
edited May 22 '15 at 0:52
Carson63000
7,1712748
answered May 21 '15 at 15:29
HLGEM
133k25226489
suggest improvements |Â
up vote
-7
down vote
All employers care about criminal convictions. A few - very few, employers may care about arrests. But again, arrests are not convictions. I doubt that a prospective employer would care about an arrest for disorderly conduct during a demonstration.
Paul Nungesser et al have not been criminally convicted. That's the only thing that matters to all employers. Everything else is fluff because anyone can allege anything and at least in the United States, no police officer can put you under arrest without a charge (*) - and it's not as if charges don't get thrown out of court all the time.
(*) can be put under detention for a limited time as determined by state law while charges are being filed against you but if the charges don't come through, they'll have to let you go.
answered May 21 '15 at 10:56
Vietnhi Phuvan
68.9k7118254
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
2
To me this is akin to saying one's name doesn't matter. Per official policy, it doesn't. But per reality, it matters a whole lot. Is there any science showing zero effect of being arrested (preferably broken down between popular cases and those which barely made the news)?
– Lawtonfogle
May 21 '15 at 13:43
@Lwtonfogle You've been accused, and the changes didn't stick. You can mope or you can get on with your own life and deal with whatever comes your way. Prospective employers have positions to fill. No one is going to stop for you. As your particular question, do your own research.
– Vietnhi Phuvan
May 21 '15 at 14:21
4
Do my own research when it is your answer where you raised the initial claim?
– Lawtonfogle
May 21 '15 at 14:29
@Lawtonfogle My initial claim of WHAT?
– Vietnhi Phuvan
May 21 '15 at 14:31
suggest improvements |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
There is an impact to any negative publicity whether the charge is sustained or not or even when there is never a legal issue but just something that causes you to be negatively in the news (like a principal that recently got fired for racist remarks). However, that impact may be fairly short-term if the issue was not something everyone remembers (Imagine trying to get a job as Monica Lewinsky for instance). The news cycle is pretty fast for most things and stories are forgotten fairly quickly. If the negative news was local, then just looking in another city could help.
Background checks would generally only care about actual convictions or possibly pending cases. An exception might be school systems who are likely to not want to hire anyone accused of a sexual crime as they have duty to protect the students. A teacher falsely accused, might need to change professions.
If you are in such a situation where there is negative publicity, I think your absolute best bet is to use your own personal network to get a job. These are people who know you and would be more likely to trust that the negative information was incorrect.
If something seems politically motivated, you could also look to people who support your side of the issue. For instance, if you got negative publicity for not wanting to support gays getting married through your business and your business went under, there are plenty of other people who feel the same way who might be happy to hire you. In the case of an unfounded rape charge, there are men who don't really even believe rape is a real thing, they are more likely to hire a person wrongly charged than the hiring manager who has personally been raped. Social media can help you find the people who are sympathetic to your side of the issue. Again you would work with these people just like you would your original personal network to get a position outside the HR hiring process.
edited May 22 '15 at 0:52
Carson63000
7,1712748
answered May 21 '15 at 15:29
HLGEM
133k25226489
suggest improvements |Â
up vote
4
down vote
There is an impact to any negative publicity whether the charge is sustained or not or even when there is never a legal issue but just something that causes you to be negatively in the news (like a principal that recently got fired for racist remarks). However, that impact may be fairly short-term if the issue was not something everyone remembers (Imagine trying to get a job as Monica Lewinsky for instance). The news cycle is pretty fast for most things and stories are forgotten fairly quickly. If the negative news was local, then just looking in another city could help.
Background checks would generally only care about actual convictions or possibly pending cases. An exception might be school systems who are likely to not want to hire anyone accused of a sexual crime as they have duty to protect the students. A teacher falsely accused, might need to change professions.
If you are in such a situation where there is negative publicity, I think your absolute best bet is to use your own personal network to get a job. These are people who know you and would be more likely to trust that the negative information was incorrect.
If something seems politically motivated, you could also look to people who support your side of the issue. For instance, if you got negative publicity for not wanting to support gays getting married through your business and your business went under, there are plenty of other people who feel the same way who might be happy to hire you. In the case of an unfounded rape charge, there are men who don't really even believe rape is a real thing, they are more likely to hire a person wrongly charged than the hiring manager who has personally been raped. Social media can help you find the people who are sympathetic to your side of the issue. Again you would work with these people just like you would your original personal network to get a position outside the HR hiring process.
edited May 22 '15 at 0:52
Carson63000
7,1712748
answered May 21 '15 at 15:29
HLGEM
133k25226489
suggest improvements |Â
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
There is an impact to any negative publicity whether the charge is sustained or not or even when there is never a legal issue but just something that causes you to be negatively in the news (like a principal that recently got fired for racist remarks). However, that impact may be fairly short-term if the issue was not something everyone remembers (Imagine trying to get a job as Monica Lewinsky for instance). The news cycle is pretty fast for most things and stories are forgotten fairly quickly. If the negative news was local, then just looking in another city could help.
Background checks would generally only care about actual convictions or possibly pending cases. An exception might be school systems who are likely to not want to hire anyone accused of a sexual crime as they have duty to protect the students. A teacher falsely accused, might need to change professions.
If you are in such a situation where there is negative publicity, I think your absolute best bet is to use your own personal network to get a job. These are people who know you and would be more likely to trust that the negative information was incorrect.
If something seems politically motivated, you could also look to people who support your side of the issue. For instance, if you got negative publicity for not wanting to support gays getting married through your business and your business went under, there are plenty of other people who feel the same way who might be happy to hire you. In the case of an unfounded rape charge, there are men who don't really even believe rape is a real thing, they are more likely to hire a person wrongly charged than the hiring manager who has personally been raped. Social media can help you find the people who are sympathetic to your side of the issue. Again you would work with these people just like you would your original personal network to get a position outside the HR hiring process.
edited May 22 '15 at 0:52
Carson63000
7,1712748
answered May 21 '15 at 15:29
HLGEM
133k25226489
There is an impact to any negative publicity whether the charge is sustained or not or even when there is never a legal issue but just something that causes you to be negatively in the news (like a principal that recently got fired for racist remarks). However, that impact may be fairly short-term if the issue was not something everyone remembers (Imagine trying to get a job as Monica Lewinsky for instance). The news cycle is pretty fast for most things and stories are forgotten fairly quickly. If the negative news was local, then just looking in another city could help.
Background checks would generally only care about actual convictions or possibly pending cases. An exception might be school systems who are likely to not want to hire anyone accused of a sexual crime as they have duty to protect the students. A teacher falsely accused, might need to change professions.
If you are in such a situation where there is negative publicity, I think your absolute best bet is to use your own personal network to get a job. These are people who know you and would be more likely to trust that the negative information was incorrect.
If something seems politically motivated, you could also look to people who support your side of the issue. For instance, if you got negative publicity for not wanting to support gays getting married through your business and your business went under, there are plenty of other people who feel the same way who might be happy to hire you. In the case of an unfounded rape charge, there are men who don't really even believe rape is a real thing, they are more likely to hire a person wrongly charged than the hiring manager who has personally been raped. Social media can help you find the people who are sympathetic to your side of the issue. Again you would work with these people just like you would your original personal network to get a position outside the HR hiring process.
edited May 22 '15 at 0:52
Carson63000
7,1712748
answered May 21 '15 at 15:29
HLGEM
133k25226489
edited May 22 '15 at 0:52
Carson63000
7,1712748
edited May 22 '15 at 0:52
Carson63000
7,1712748
edited May 22 '15 at 0:52
Carson63000
7,1712748
7,1712748
answered May 21 '15 at 15:29
HLGEM
133k25226489
answered May 21 '15 at 15:29
HLGEM
133k25226489
answered May 21 '15 at 15:29
HLGEM
133k25226489
133k25226489
suggest improvements |Â
suggest improvements |Â
up vote
-7
down vote
All employers care about criminal convictions. A few - very few, employers may care about arrests. But again, arrests are not convictions. I doubt that a prospective employer would care about an arrest for disorderly conduct during a demonstration.
Paul Nungesser et al have not been criminally convicted. That's the only thing that matters to all employers. Everything else is fluff because anyone can allege anything and at least in the United States, no police officer can put you under arrest without a charge (*) - and it's not as if charges don't get thrown out of court all the time.
(*) can be put under detention for a limited time as determined by state law while charges are being filed against you but if the charges don't come through, they'll have to let you go.
answered May 21 '15 at 10:56
Vietnhi Phuvan
68.9k7118254
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
2
To me this is akin to saying one's name doesn't matter. Per official policy, it doesn't. But per reality, it matters a whole lot. Is there any science showing zero effect of being arrested (preferably broken down between popular cases and those which barely made the news)?
– Lawtonfogle
May 21 '15 at 13:43
@Lwtonfogle You've been accused, and the changes didn't stick. You can mope or you can get on with your own life and deal with whatever comes your way. Prospective employers have positions to fill. No one is going to stop for you. As your particular question, do your own research.
– Vietnhi Phuvan
May 21 '15 at 14:21
4
Do my own research when it is your answer where you raised the initial claim?
– Lawtonfogle
May 21 '15 at 14:29
@Lawtonfogle My initial claim of WHAT?
– Vietnhi Phuvan
May 21 '15 at 14:31
suggest improvements |Â
up vote
-7
down vote
All employers care about criminal convictions. A few - very few, employers may care about arrests. But again, arrests are not convictions. I doubt that a prospective employer would care about an arrest for disorderly conduct during a demonstration.
Paul Nungesser et al have not been criminally convicted. That's the only thing that matters to all employers. Everything else is fluff because anyone can allege anything and at least in the United States, no police officer can put you under arrest without a charge (*) - and it's not as if charges don't get thrown out of court all the time.
(*) can be put under detention for a limited time as determined by state law while charges are being filed against you but if the charges don't come through, they'll have to let you go.
answered May 21 '15 at 10:56
Vietnhi Phuvan
68.9k7118254
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
2
To me this is akin to saying one's name doesn't matter. Per official policy, it doesn't. But per reality, it matters a whole lot. Is there any science showing zero effect of being arrested (preferably broken down between popular cases and those which barely made the news)?
– Lawtonfogle
May 21 '15 at 13:43
@Lwtonfogle You've been accused, and the changes didn't stick. You can mope or you can get on with your own life and deal with whatever comes your way. Prospective employers have positions to fill. No one is going to stop for you. As your particular question, do your own research.
– Vietnhi Phuvan
May 21 '15 at 14:21
4
Do my own research when it is your answer where you raised the initial claim?
– Lawtonfogle
May 21 '15 at 14:29
@Lawtonfogle My initial claim of WHAT?
– Vietnhi Phuvan
May 21 '15 at 14:31
suggest improvements |Â
up vote
-7
down vote
up vote
-7
down vote
All employers care about criminal convictions. A few - very few, employers may care about arrests. But again, arrests are not convictions. I doubt that a prospective employer would care about an arrest for disorderly conduct during a demonstration.
Paul Nungesser et al have not been criminally convicted. That's the only thing that matters to all employers. Everything else is fluff because anyone can allege anything and at least in the United States, no police officer can put you under arrest without a charge (*) - and it's not as if charges don't get thrown out of court all the time.
(*) can be put under detention for a limited time as determined by state law while charges are being filed against you but if the charges don't come through, they'll have to let you go.
answered May 21 '15 at 10:56
Vietnhi Phuvan
68.9k7118254
All employers care about criminal convictions. A few - very few, employers may care about arrests. But again, arrests are not convictions. I doubt that a prospective employer would care about an arrest for disorderly conduct during a demonstration.
Paul Nungesser et al have not been criminally convicted. That's the only thing that matters to all employers. Everything else is fluff because anyone can allege anything and at least in the United States, no police officer can put you under arrest without a charge (*) - and it's not as if charges don't get thrown out of court all the time.
(*) can be put under detention for a limited time as determined by state law while charges are being filed against you but if the charges don't come through, they'll have to let you go.
answered May 21 '15 at 10:56
Vietnhi Phuvan
68.9k7118254
edited May 21 '15 at 11:02
answered May 21 '15 at 10:56
Vietnhi Phuvan
68.9k7118254
answered May 21 '15 at 10:56
Vietnhi Phuvan
68.9k7118254
answered May 21 '15 at 10:56
Vietnhi Phuvan
68.9k7118254
68.9k7118254
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
2
To me this is akin to saying one's name doesn't matter. Per official policy, it doesn't. But per reality, it matters a whole lot. Is there any science showing zero effect of being arrested (preferably broken down between popular cases and those which barely made the news)?
– Lawtonfogle
May 21 '15 at 13:43
@Lwtonfogle You've been accused, and the changes didn't stick. You can mope or you can get on with your own life and deal with whatever comes your way. Prospective employers have positions to fill. No one is going to stop for you. As your particular question, do your own research.
– Vietnhi Phuvan
May 21 '15 at 14:21
4
Do my own research when it is your answer where you raised the initial claim?
– Lawtonfogle
May 21 '15 at 14:29
@Lawtonfogle My initial claim of WHAT?
– Vietnhi Phuvan
May 21 '15 at 14:31
suggest improvements |Â
2
To me this is akin to saying one's name doesn't matter. Per official policy, it doesn't. But per reality, it matters a whole lot. Is there any science showing zero effect of being arrested (preferably broken down between popular cases and those which barely made the news)?
– Lawtonfogle
May 21 '15 at 13:43
@Lwtonfogle You've been accused, and the changes didn't stick. You can mope or you can get on with your own life and deal with whatever comes your way. Prospective employers have positions to fill. No one is going to stop for you. As your particular question, do your own research.
– Vietnhi Phuvan
May 21 '15 at 14:21
4
Do my own research when it is your answer where you raised the initial claim?
– Lawtonfogle
May 21 '15 at 14:29
@Lawtonfogle My initial claim of WHAT?
– Vietnhi Phuvan
May 21 '15 at 14:31
2
2
To me this is akin to saying one's name doesn't matter. Per official policy, it doesn't. But per reality, it matters a whole lot. Is there any science showing zero effect of being arrested (preferably broken down between popular cases and those which barely made the news)?
– Lawtonfogle
May 21 '15 at 13:43
To me this is akin to saying one's name doesn't matter. Per official policy, it doesn't. But per reality, it matters a whole lot. Is there any science showing zero effect of being arrested (preferably broken down between popular cases and those which barely made the news)?
– Lawtonfogle
May 21 '15 at 13:43
@Lwtonfogle You've been accused, and the changes didn't stick. You can mope or you can get on with your own life and deal with whatever comes your way. Prospective employers have positions to fill. No one is going to stop for you. As your particular question, do your own research.
– Vietnhi Phuvan
May 21 '15 at 14:21
@Lwtonfogle You've been accused, and the changes didn't stick. You can mope or you can get on with your own life and deal with whatever comes your way. Prospective employers have positions to fill. No one is going to stop for you. As your particular question, do your own research.
– Vietnhi Phuvan
May 21 '15 at 14:21
4
4
Do my own research when it is your answer where you raised the initial claim?
– Lawtonfogle
May 21 '15 at 14:29
Do my own research when it is your answer where you raised the initial claim?
– Lawtonfogle
May 21 '15 at 14:29
@Lawtonfogle My initial claim of WHAT?
– Vietnhi Phuvan
May 21 '15 at 14:31
@Lawtonfogle My initial claim of WHAT?
– Vietnhi Phuvan
May 21 '15 at 14:31
suggest improvements |Â
Whether he was falsely or correctly accused and rightly or wrongly exonerated doesn't really make a difference to his employment and career chances.
– gnasher729
May 21 '15 at 9:25
2
This is interesting yet completely unanswerable in this format. It's entirely opinion based. Voting to close.
– Jane S♦
May 21 '15 at 9:47
1
@gnasher729 You mean to say that the fact he has been accused at all is enough to destroy his employment/career chances.
– Jack
May 21 '15 at 9:50
2
@user541852587 It would depend on the country, the organisation, and whatever policies they have in place within that organisation. Some places would have no issue, others would. I would be very surprised if there was a global set of standards that cover this. Recruiters would discuss with the organisation their particular policy.
– Jane S♦
May 21 '15 at 10:54
2
This could be answered with science with a little change. For example, science has shown that one's name does influence a person's chance to be called back, even when the rest of the resume is the same. But the question should be 'what impact' instead of 'is it possible'.
– Lawtonfogle
May 21 '15 at 13:46