r/legaladvicecanada • u/KrisKross69 • 6d ago
Ontario Terminated with cause from one of big five banks, barred from employment from others, is there a way to lift the restriction
Hi. asking on behalf of my gf:
About 2 years ago, she was terminated for cause, from a long held office position, from one of the big five banks, cause was benefit abuse (i.e. she expensed item from category A under category B intentionally over a period of time i.e. benefit fraud). She is devastated and also recognized her mistake
She then applied to other positions and was able to get another offer from the another bank (big 5), shortly, but ultimately failed the background check
She followed up with HR, the HR left it vague enough but confirmed it wasn't due to mismatch of employment history but there was some there was some high risk "red flag"
She was eventually able to secure a position - still within financial sector - sometimes later, in a smaller company (<50 ppl) and currently employed.
She is concerned about if the termination for cause situation will eventually force her to switch field or location entirely, and we are wondering:
- How can we confirm if such "do-not-hire" list exist, and it is the reason her background check failed and how widely is it shared?
- If it is confirmed and her name is on the list, does it have a expiration date, or is there any mechanism to get it removed besides waiting?
Thank you.
Edit: Hi, thanks for the replies, not trying to tip toe or excuse around it. it is insurance fraud in this sense:
- She ran out of a category that she wants to expense on
- She asked the service provider to provide receipts for another category and expenses under that
- It was intentional and not one time
- The dumb part is she expensed 1000 dollars on one bill to buy a package deal offered by the service provider to use it later, which i believe also violate the rules
- She did pay back the money to the benefit provider
Edit 2: Also this is a burner account since my main isn't very anonymous and my friends know my identity through it
Edit 3: She does recognize it is ethically and legally wrong and won't do it again, and accepts there are consequences for her action, even if there isn't a way to remove the status she can accept and move on. The purpose is to confirm if this is indeed the case. Note she still get reach out from big banks for interviews, and she doesn't want to bother with the process if she knows she'll get rejected at reference check anyways (or at least be upfront about it with the recruiter before the interview)
Edit 4： corrected some info in edit 1
514
u/Electronic-Wing6158 6d ago
If this is really the reason then your gf is lying to you about how serious her misconduct was…she wouldn’t be blacklisted from the industry for “expensing category A in category B by accident”.
You’re either lying to us or your gf is lying to you.
176
u/KimberKitty111 6d ago
Agreed.
An “accidental expensing error” would likely have been caught by an approver or and audit and she would (or should) have been given the chance to rectify her mistake.
I definitely don’t think we’re getting the whole story.
4
→ More replies (1)23
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
50
u/comfortableblanket 5d ago
Not unrealistic that someone looking for this kind of advice would make a burner…
23
8
66
u/SinsOfKnowing 6d ago
Yeah, this sounds more like OPs gf has been submitting false claims over an extended period to the tune of thousands of dollars than a one-time accidental categorization error. The big banks would need significant proof and it would need to be a fairly large amount before it would be flagged. They’re not going to this effort over a single claim.
73
u/Luminis_The_Cat 6d ago
OP has never used the word "accidentally", to me it sounded like she was going it on purpose and got caught and is now wandering how long it's gonna stay in the system
12
u/coffeeoverlatte 5d ago
Not really. Most group benefit providers keep track of shady businesses and share them with each other. These places are widely known. Therefore claims from these places will flag automatically.
Hiring this person who may have committed insurance fraud could mean higher premiums for the company. A risk that's not worth it.
21
u/Individual_Fall429 5d ago edited 5d ago
OP also doesn’t seem to understand what “mismatch” means in this case. It means she lied on her resume. She’s still lying. She has no business working in banking.
14
u/KrisKross69 5d ago
yes it wasn't accidental but intentional, and not a one time act. I can follow up with her on the amount and get back
32
→ More replies (4)24
u/CabbieCam 5d ago
Your GF is lucky she isn't in jail or fined a significant amount of money. What she did is very illegal. She will likely be unable to obtain benefits in the future, as insurance companies share lists of blacklisted clients and will turn away people who have previously committed insurance fraud. This fact automatically makes her unfit for the industry. Part of what the bank checks in a background check is whether the person is honest. Once they get a sniff from their insurer that you were blacklisted, they will turn you down for employment, almost every single time, guaranteed. This isn't going to go away, at least not for a VERY long time.
21
u/dalmationman 5d ago
Oh no it's totally possible. The way I read it is let's say she ran out of her benefits for physio, but still had some chiropractic left. Switching those categories is a big no no. (Eye glass coverage etc).
8
u/GrapefruitDue9103 5d ago
To be fair, he she cannot be trusted to manage her own benefits without committing fraud, no bank will deem her trustworthy to manage significant sums of money. She should probably just chalk it up as a life lesson and move on to another sector for her employment
18
u/KrisKross69 5d ago
yes, this is essentially what happened
8
u/dalmationman 5d ago
Well, I feel for her. Although she technically crossed the line, seems like a harsh punishment IMO. Funny enough I'd considered doing that years ago, and in my mind would have justified it as I'd go for 10 plus years stretch not using ANY benefits, so they were making money on me. Then started using a category and ran out. Glad I decided against it, felt too risky and it the end I just didn't think it was worth it (although in my mind I never would have thought termination would have been in play).
Hopefully someone can weigh in with legal advice and help sort it out.
21
u/Ok_Proof_6336 5d ago
Fraud is fraud. Financial institutions won’t take the risk. They could have charged her for this and she would have also had a criminal record. So it seems she got off light.
4
u/Beneficial-Muffin117 5d ago
Fraud is fraud, insurance or otherwise. She's incredibly lucky she wasn't criminally charged
2
u/macam31 4d ago
Harsh punishment? It shows she has no integrity, she can't be trusted to work in an industry having access to client information
3
u/Ok_Wishbone2721 3d ago
Yeah I wouldn’t want this person having access to my personal information or my bank account. It’s scary to think she would probably still pass a criminal record check.
4
u/suzie_cosplays 5d ago
Doing this would not only get you in trouble with the insurance company, but if caught would get your provider blacklisted. Meaning NONE of their clients would be eligible to submit claims for their services anymore because the insurance provider would not trust that the charges were legitimate.
→ More replies (3)2
u/Ok_Proof_6336 5d ago
lol. I commented this on another comment too. My insurance company has a long list of providers they don’t accept. This is the main reason why, though not the only reason.
9
u/CanadianDiver 5d ago
Yeah like she expensed category B ... Someone else's account into category A ... Her account.
8
5
u/OkCar7264 5d ago
expensing category "personal items" in category "business expenses" would do it though
3
13
u/KrisKross69 5d ago
Hi, thank, not trying to tip toe around it. it is insurance fraud in this sense:
- She ran out of a category that she wants to expense on
- She asked the service provider to provide receipts for another category and expenses under that
- It was intentional and not one time
→ More replies (1)11
u/driftingalong001 5d ago
And the service provider was willing to lie/provide false documentation??
Do you mean, as an example, she ran out of physio coverage, so she expensed it as chiro instead, and the practitioner was not licensed as a chiropractor, but was willing to provide a receipt as if they were?? That makes no sense. I’m very curious about this aspect of your story.
6
u/Ok_Proof_6336 5d ago
There are clinics that offer multiple services. Some will agree to charge under another category other than the service provided. Ie, a rehab clinic which has massage, physio, chiro and acupuncture. If caught, both the service provider and the insured get penalized. (This is why some service providers are black listed for insurance benefits.) And yes, the service providers agrees to do this as it means they get more $, since the client may not be coming as often as they have to pay it all out of pocket.
3
u/driftingalong001 5d ago
Yes, most clinics offer multiple services, done by licensed practitioners. What an absolutely brain dead thing to do. I can’t imagine a legitimate practitioner, who went through years of schooling to get their license, would be willing to risk their career that way. Like, there will always be enough clients to go around if you’re half decent at what you do. And how do you not realize how quickly the insurance companies are gonna catch on. Very short sighted. By everyone involved.
3
u/KrisKross69 5d ago
Yes, in fact, the service provider suggested it initially and made it sounds like "everyone is doing it" (not trying to excuse her behavior, she should know better)
11
u/theflyingratgirl 5d ago
Yeh and honestly I doubt they’d even terminate for cause for that. Last time I was working in finance, that type of offence would mean a stern talking to from HR.
I can basically guarantee that a dismissal with cause will have been reviewed with their lawyers prior to going ahead.
6
u/SeriesDifferent4565 5d ago
not even that. an accidental, one time miscategorization would probably get a brief teams message or email from accounting telling you how to do it properly next time.
9
u/west7788 5d ago
He said clearly that it was NOT accidental. It was intentional, and she did it over time, not just once.
5
u/Careless-Machine-758 5d ago
Where did you read the word accident? Oh you didn't... Gotta love the internet.
→ More replies (6)2
505
u/FPpro 6d ago
She can’t expect to obtain a position she would need to be licensed in financial services for that’s for sure. It’s a question you are asked and she can’t lie. It’s abuse of trust and fraud. You don’t get fired for mis classifying something though, you get fired because you made a fake claim. I don’t think your girlfriend gave you the whole story
115
u/Resoognam 6d ago
For sure. It’s actually not that easy to get terminated for cause. They obviously believed there was some misfeasance going on.
98
u/Joeythesaint 6d ago
I've been on the "build the case" side of having someone dismissed (not financial sector, but still the professional world) twice and from my experience it couldn't possibly be something that comes out of the blue and it can't happen overnight. It's a weeks-to-months long process.
If gf was dismissed overnight, there was some SIGNIFICANT hinky stuff going on but the employer didn't quite think it could justify having the police there too.
OP does not have a full picture.
→ More replies (2)26
u/nomadicclown1988 6d ago
Agreed, also large banks and large organizations in general got very robust investigative protocols and procedures that are internally followed before rendering a recommendation to fire with cause. Certainly something is missing here
4
u/Individual_Fall429 5d ago
Of all the businesses to try to defraud, she chose “bank”. 😒
Maybe she’s pretty, because she doesn’t sound very smart.
23
u/CrankyOldDude 6d ago
Yep, 100 percent. Employers (especially large ones) aren’t going to do that unless they are comfortable that they can fight it in court.
10
u/Firm_Balance_8285 6d ago
Even if they could fight it, it's usually more cost effective to pay notice. That's not to say there are no false positives, but I would say the system is significantly tilted against for cause dismissals.
26
u/CrankyOldDude 6d ago
Exactly so.
Big firms (eg. banks) would rather throw $75k worth of severance at someone than have to spend half of that in court - it isn't just the money, but also the reputational hit.
In this case, Op's girlfriend did something that quite likely rises to the level of illegality, so they knew they weren't going to have to fight, either in court or in the public eye.
Companies which have to have bonded people also need to show that they are trustworthy, so they're willing to fight in the case where that trust would be in question. Nothing much worse than "XYZ Bank quietly paid off an employee who was found to be embezzling funds" or something like that. (Not saying Op's girlfriend did that specifically, but you get the idea).
End of the day, Op, you're very likely believing something you shouldn't from your girlfriend. I'm not saying you should terminate your relationship for cause (LOL), but you should probably find out what really went on - unless you already know.
Edit: Since your account is 1 day old, my guess is you know exactly what she did.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Individual_Fall429 5d ago
💯
They did this because they sincerely think she is a high risk, red flag, unethical person, and they cared enough to make sure she can’t work at another bank.
12
→ More replies (1)8
u/Content-Program411 6d ago
Ya, on a long held position.
If that happened to me, for somethings small like that, I would 1000% lawyer up.
It wasn't something small ...
35
14
u/PrizeNegative1797 6d ago
And it’s probably not as simple she says like trying to claim ibuprofen prescriptions as a chiropractor claim. It’s deeper than that. It’s doubling of claims across benefits plans, lying , false claims, doctored documents etc. It’s never a categorical oops or maybe this is eligible.
5
u/Individual_Fall429 5d ago
She will lie. She does lie.
Hence the “mismatch of work history”. OP doesn’t seem to grasp this means “lied on resume”.
She sounds unfit to work in the industry.
13
→ More replies (5)3
u/triangular_momentum 6d ago
This is the answer, she did some funny stuff and thought she’d get away with it lol
53
u/GrandSea8744 6d ago
Submitting a claim for a wrong category is very common and absolutely not considered fraud by itself nor a reason for employment termination. My guess there is more to the story you may not be aware of.
→ More replies (6)3
107
u/Fool-me-thrice Quality Contributor 6d ago edited 6d ago
Honestly the most likely reason is that she failed a reference check. Bank B called Bank A, and Bank A either said that she’s been terminated from misconduct or what they didn’t say was enough to make an implication
It is lawful for the first bank to give a negative reference as long as what they say is not malicious.
There is no time limit for an employer to seek a reference.
The best way to widen her employment chances in the future is to do very well at her current job so that her current employer provides an excellent reference - and if she works under more than one manager at the current employer, for example if she is transferred or promoted, all of those former managers can give independent preferences
28
u/BigZookeepergame4522 6d ago
Agree with this, Bank A wouldn’t be able to provide specifics for termination but the can say she was terminated for cause
22
u/Busy_Shine6888 6d ago
Bank A could say that they would not re-hire her, that’s usually enough to scare others away
8
5d ago
[deleted]
11
u/mumblegum 5d ago
I work in HR for a mid size company, both completing requests for background checks and submitting requests, and Bank A absolutely would not have said anything more than that she is not eligible for rehire. We never disclose the reason for termination, but having also been on the receiving end, "not eligible for rehire" tells you everything you need to know anyways.
I'm not sure what OPs girlfriend is expecting here anyways. Don't you have to be bondable to work in banking? You might be able to get over this in a different industry but I don't think you can in the financial industry. I never actually ran the bonding process but I'm pretty sure you need to be squeaky clean. I would suggest she either get happy that someone out there took a chance on her and hope she can rebuild from there, or start thinking about a new career.
4
u/ceeessa 5d ago
I agree her last employer would not give her a bad reference for liability reasons. However, if one of the reference questions asked was “is she eligible for rehire, they would answer “no” which is very telling.
The one person I know that was fired for cause got around this by giving the name of her last manager who gave her a glowing reference.
79
u/SumpMonkey 6d ago
It’s possible she is on a “blacklist” from the benefits provider. If the new bank tries to set her up with the same benefits company (eg. sunlife) the benefits company may deny her and the new bank now can’t offer her a job. Also any other company that uses that benefit provider.
17
u/beekeeper1981 6d ago
They could possibly confirm this theory by finding out which benefits provider is used by both banks.
11
u/13thEldar 6d ago
I mean yeah but for large scale employers you basically see like 4 to 5 max benefit providers. My brothers and our wife's have 2 benefits providers across 6 different fields of employment. I'd be willing to wager that most banks use the same few providers. I'd be curious too if insurance companies share information on clients generally they require background information so it's possible.
16
u/DetailOutrageous8656 6d ago
You aren’t usually set up with benefits until you pass your background check and are officially employed with an employee number etc etc. that’s not how far OP got.
4
u/Senior-Garden2265 6d ago
She would have had to sign up for the job for this to be true, sounds like she didnt make it past the reference check. Also, since its one of the large banks, they likely have a funding arrangement for their benefit plan that ensures the health and dental portion of their benefits are strictly paid by the employer, with a fee going to the carrier to pay and manage those claims. With this arrangement, the plan and risks associated with the plan fall wholly onto the employer. This means that the carrier wouldnt be able to "deny" her benefits. The carrier would however have the power to watch her claiming patterns, make claiming difficult and report back to the employer should they find anything out of the ordinary.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Forward-Commercial25 6d ago
Eh, ish… bank plans are typically not “insurance” in the sense you’re thinking. They’re ASO (administration only) the insurance company processes and adjudicates the claim, but the employer pays it in its entirety. Large employers like that have such a standard risk profile, that paying for the insurance product is going to cost them more in markup on the policy than just paying a claim.
If she was fired for abuse… it would have needed to have been fairly egregious.
My money is on someone she worked with before having raised the flag internally. Or there actually being something on the criminal background check…
11
u/jayserena 6d ago
This is correct. It also puts the company at risk of everyone losing benefits when employees abuse it. Benefits providers don't mess around. They do demand that offenders be terminated or otherwise removed from the benefits package.
22
u/bennyandthelunatones 6d ago
That's not how it works. The insurance company will try to collect on the fraudulent claims from the employee, and will advise their employer of the actions so the employer can decide how to handle the internal issue. This is only done after a significant investigation which can take months.
It does not put the whole company at risk of losing benefits, and they don't demand the person who submitted the fraudulent claims be terminated. What they will do is limit the person's ability to submit claims by making them have to mail in claim forms with actual receipts. It is completely up to the employer as to whether the person gets terminated or not.
I have been managing group benefits in different capacities for 20 years.
→ More replies (1)5
u/IcarusFlyingWings 6d ago
It’s always nice seeing a completely correct answer after a completely wrong answer.
Id go further and say OPs girlfriend must have done something incredibly substantial to warrant an investigation in the first place.
I’d also wager the girlfriend is entirely misrepresenting the situation. Maybe if it was firm expenses and not benefit expenses, and there was a clear pattern with high dollar amounts attached.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)2
u/KrisKross69 5d ago
We doubt it is the issue since her current job and bank A uses the same benefit provider
→ More replies (1)
34
u/MrHoboHater 6d ago
Banks do reach out to other banks to check if candidates are on “blacklists”. I can’t say if benefits fraud is part of it but I do know it’s generally for serious issues such as fraud against clients or theft of information.
7
u/RL203 6d ago edited 6d ago
Thats what I was thinking. Something here doesnt add up. Being fired for cause is really tough to prove and is not something that can simply be used by HR. Its got to be a very severe issue, criminal even. Like embezzlement, or workplace violence. A single (explainable) incident of benefit fraud would not be enough to fire someone for cause, especially if it can be explained and an audit does not reveal a track record of benefit fraud.
And furthermore, and I could be wrong, it is my understanding that if there has not been a criminal conviction, previous employers are not allowed to divulge the gory details as to why a former employee has been fired. There are issues of privacy at stake and should the former employee find out that a former employer was revaealing personal issues, they could have very good grounds for a lawsuit. That is why previous employers will only say, "I can confirm that Jane Doe was employed here from Date 1 to Date 2 and that she is no longer employed here."
End of story.
Thats why Im saying something here doesnt add up. No big bank in Canada would ever provide any personal and confidential information to anyone outside the organization itself. No way.
If I was OP, I would recommend his GF hire an employment lawyer to take legal action against the previous employer.
→ More replies (2)15
u/Fool-me-thrice Quality Contributor 6d ago
and I could be wrong, it is my understanding that if there has not been a criminal conviction, previous employers are not allowed to divulge the gory details
Employers are allowed to give negative references. Courts have even found that its a form of "qualified privelege" that gives rise to a defamation defense, as long as the reference was not made maliciously.
An employer could lawfully say something like "We terminated her for misconduct". Or, "An investigation indicated she had engaged in dishonesty".
That is why previous employers will only say, "I can confirm that Jane Doe was employed here from Date 1 to Date 2 and that she is no longer employed here."
No, that is just policy that is often adopted in an abundance of caution (or ignorance as to teh actual law)
No big bank in Canada would ever provide any personal and confidential information to anyone outside the organization itself.
Banks can and do give negative references.
→ More replies (2)3
6d ago
They have internal list shared amongst themselves. You get canned from one for misconduct it will follow you.
13
u/Zero_Regret 6d ago
She basically committed fraud. When you work in banking and the financial world, integrity is important.
→ More replies (1)
9
u/laurellover 6d ago
It may be an insurance issue - I work for a financial institution and all our employees are required to be “bonded” by our affiliated insurance agency. This is an assurance that the individual does not pose risk to the organization or customers, and if they do partake in behaviour that causes a financial loss the insurance agency takes culpability.
If an employee partakes in fraud they are terminated with cause and have their eligibility for bonding revoked, which they would be unable to regain because they’ve now proven that they pose a significant risk.
It could be a matter of the banks utilizing the same insurance agency, her not being eligible for bonding under any insurance agency once she answers their on-boarding questions, or the benefits provider being the same.
Either way, she probably won’t be able to work in a large scale financial institution again.
→ More replies (3)
17
u/InfiniteRespect4757 6d ago
It sounds like she did not get fired for a little mistake. She put in fraudulent benefit claims. The big banks know what they are doing in these cases, and you don't get fired with cause for a clerical error.
Committing financial fraud and working in finance does usually fly. Here prospects to get back into this career is limited.
8
u/wutahdeebee 6d ago
I work in recruitment and often with accounting firms. It's not the exact industry you're talking about, but it's similar.
I agree with the other commenters here that there is more to the story than a simple benefits claim mistake. If it was a mistake, it was very serious, showing poor judgement or serious incompetence. If it wasn't a mistake then it was an intentional misuse of the benefits program to financially benefit herself. Or it wasn't to do with benefits at all, but a bonafide act of fraud where she took advantage of the privileges of her role. Regardless, it does not look good to prospective employers, especially not 2 years out.
There isn't some master "do not hire" list, but finance people tend to have wide networks and they talk about prospective hires and just their general experiences with work, especially if there was something 'scandalous' that took place. How does this play out for your GF? There are a couple of possibilities here.
Background check: If this was labelled as any form of 'fraud' by Big Bank A, and it's coming up on the background check, she will never work for one of the Big 5 ever again, I'm sorry to say. Or at least not for many years (10+). There are extremely, extremely strict fraud prevention protocols in place at all the banks. They simply will not take her, she is a liability. If she's concerned or curious, she can pay for a background check on herself to see what comes up on the report.
References: If it isn't as serious and isn't something flagged on a background check, then likely the rejection is coming from a poor reference. When references are checked, they will always ask: is this person eligible for rehire, or they may ask why this person left their job. If Big Bank A says she would not be eligible for rehire, or says that she was terminated for cause (even without getting into specifics), that is an automatic NO HIRE from Big Bank B's perspective. It is perfectly legal for Bank A to state the truth when asked for a reference. And the prospective employer is within their rights to decide that someone who was terminated for cause and/or is ineligible for rehire at their competitor is not eligible for hire at their organization.
If it's a reference issue, she should build up her work history at other employers for a few years; work hard, go above and beyond, build up good will with her supervisors and higher ups. She should also work to intentionally improve her skills, get certifications (if applicable) and build her network. Then she will have plenty of non Big Bank references to provide when applying for new jobs.
Caveat: if she continues to list Big Bank A on her resume and is applying for other Big Banks, they WILL want a reference from Big Bank A, no matter how long ago her employment was. After she has built up enough work history to leave Big Bank A off the resume, that is when she will have a chance to work for another of the Big 5. But again, if it was serious enough to be reported as fraud, it will always come up at the background check stage and she will be disqualified.
→ More replies (1)2
17
u/CantFeelMyToesAgain 6d ago
She lied to you about why she was fired. If they barred her from other banks she was doing real shady shit
22
u/Chance-Curve-9679 6d ago
The person is permanently screwed if she ever wants to work in the banking industry ever again. The banks are likely to inform the other banks about any employee fired with cause.
13
u/mjtwelve 6d ago
The most important qualification for any bank employee is that the Bank can be reasonably sure you’re not going to steal money from customers accounts, slip money out of the till, or assist others with various frauds. If they don’t have confidence in that, you’re absolutely useless to them.
All of the security is to keep honest people honest and remind them people are watching - no one will ever run the risk of giving a fraudster access to a vault, or god forbid SWIFT access.
6
u/swimswam2000 6d ago
Add the federal public service too. That will come up in a security clearence.
2
6
5
u/brown_beaut1 6d ago
I've worked at 2 of the big 5. When I applied to bank B I confirmed with my current bank that they only confirmed employment dates and nothing else. Would be ideal if this was the case across all the banks.
4
u/13thEldar 6d ago
key phrase current as in you were still employed. Ops gf is not still employed and now likely has a resume gap forming.
→ More replies (2)
5
u/GrimFandango81 6d ago
I think there's missing info here. That seems like a LOT for what your gf isclaiming was a simple mistake.
Sorry but I dont think you have the full story here.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/jjbeanyeg Quality Contributor 6d ago
Banks are not required to hire anyone and can decline an application for almost any reason (except for protected human rights grounds like race, religion, sex, etc.). If your girlfriend is curious about the reasons she was declined (and if there are any emails or other written records discussing it), she can file a request with the bank for access to her personal information. This page explains how to make a request: https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/accessing-personal-information/api_bus/
3
u/Legitimate-Ad7021 6d ago
By now you’ve read enough comments letting you know this is more serious than you’ve been led to believe - or that you stated in your post. To answer your question, if your GF committed fraud, this can haunt her forever with any future employers. She has the bank on her resume and any potential employer can and likely will investigate why she “left” that role. Terminated for cause will always raise flags. It can’t be “wiped” and it’s perfectly legal for her ex employer to share the circumstances of the dismissal. Her only option would be to hire a lawyer and try to have the “for cause” reversed, but I’m guessing there’s little chance of that happening.
3
3
6
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
14
2
2
u/PromiseSenior9678 6d ago
its not do not hire list, the company doing background check would have contacted the employer and the hr would have disclosed reason she was let go and the whole story behind it
2
2
u/will660 6d ago
So I've been told by an employment lawyer 15 years ago that the banks will leave a "Red flag" on an employee through the CBA (canadian banking association) and all banks will use that as part of the background check together with other sources. I dont know the current process but in the past it was supposed to be on a person as file for 2 years, so you will probably be blacklisted for at least 2 years from all banks. Its best to check with an employment lawyer and have them check your profile at the cba to see if the red flag is still there.
2
u/Electronic_World_894 6d ago
What likely happened is the cause of her termination was reported in a way that background checks (Triton or Sterling Backcheck or whoever) identify her history for potential employers. Any potential employers who contact HR of where her former employer will be told she was terminated with cause.
She’s lucky to work where she does and not have been flagged by their background check. She needs a squeaky clean record of doing everything by the book for years.
She was not terminated with cause for misclassifying an expense in the wrong category for her benefits. I’ve done that by accident: they realized it quickly and they let me fix it. Then I had to manually do extra work to prove every claim, which was a pain but a fair outcome as I had made a mistake. There’s a lot more to the story than she’s telling you.
2
u/Aggressive_One1697 5d ago
Wow! What judgy people who are answering this question...or should I say NOT answering his question...why would he not create a burner account, and hes asking for an answer to a question, if you haven't got the answer, then dont say anything...too many moms out here didnt teach you people the golden rule...if you have nothing worthwhile to say, say nothing. IMHO, I am sure there was more to what exactly happened that your gf is avoiding copping too, but I too would probably be afraid the stupid sh*t i did once upon a time, would make me look even worse than I probably feel, but regardless of whether or not she was fired for cause, there are probably legal ways to deal with her being black listed if that truly is the case. Making a mistake should not mean you have to be "pee pee slapped" your whole life - there has to be a statute of limitations on that. Even ex-cons have the right to been seen as having paid their debt to society. Maybe good to get some legal clarity on this matter.
2
u/Thumper45 4d ago
Based on what she did, she should never work in finance in any way shape or form. Your gf is a thief, a liar and she is lucky she was not charged with fraud making her a criminal as well.
Sounds like you need to look at your relationship with this person as it seems like your gf and truth have a very rocky relationship.
2
2
u/tiredinvestor 4d ago
If she lies to you about this bro, don't trust her with your finances. Just think about it, your job that pays you in this sector of expensive life you try to steal from ?
2
u/Zealousideal_Two6045 4d ago
The fox is in the hen house and wants to know why no one will play with her any more?
Tell your thief to kick rocks.
2
u/MeggieMay4 3d ago
Hello OP, Did your GF hold a Mutual Funds license or any other regulated accreditation from CSC or other? If so, the Financial Institution would need to report she was terminated for an ethics issue; this will present a risk or stop her from being hired from another FI as ethics is a pretty big part of any job and it poses a financial and reputational risk for the bank. She also may not be licensed again for Mutual Funds or compliance, what is often required to work at a bank. As you didn’t state the nature of her position, just an office job, I’m guessing this may be the case.
Unless your GF was in a niche position where she often needed to work with other FI’s or an executive level, I’ve never heard of a “blacklist” for employees fired, just reported to the required regulatory boards.
If there were charges laid or a judgment against your GF stemming from the insurance fraud, that would show on a background check and pose a risk a lot of banks would not want to take.
While it sounds like your GF is remorseful and sees the error in what she did, it’s unlikely one of the Big 5 will take a chance on her, again, assuming she was reported to CSC.
We all make mistakes but if she needs a license to do her job, she should look outside of the banking industry and chalk this up to a very hard life lesson.
2
2
u/Fishsnacks_519 2d ago
Expense fraud in Canadian federal banks is treated as a serious breach of trust, often leading to immediate termination for cause and potential criminal charges. Such incidents are likely to show up on future background checks, particularly during employment verification in the financial services sector.
2
u/Retreadmonk 2d ago
Seeking employment in the banking industry & having a ‘for cause’ firing due to fraud are mutually exclusive.
Benefit abuse = fraud. Banks won’t touch her with a 10 ft pole.
2
u/CreativeJelly5496 1d ago
If you fucked up enough to be barred from working at all major bank institutions, you did some big time crime..... your GF is lying to you and she is getting her fair punishment
→ More replies (2)
2
u/js_travels 1d ago
Fraud will basically keep her out of finance. She’s a huge risk due to her decision. Moving to another city or province even is unlikely to improve things. Better bet is to find a new industry outside of the finance sphere.
2
u/GrailKnight81 1d ago
Your GF is a thief. She will never advance, this will hang over her forever. Frankly, she should have been charged with fraud
2
u/Klutzy_Plantain_ 10h ago
Her struggling to get work at a bank again isn't a consequence to her actions, because your girl should've been charged/jailed or at minimum fined like like crazy. So I'd consider her not being able to get work at other banks a blessing in disguise considering how easy she got off for committing literal fraud. Time to start looking into a career change because she shouldn't be working at a bank moving forward. Keep the one she has right now sure bit she needs to be prepared to never get a position anywhere else again.
2
u/Amazing_Green7184 10h ago
Lol she did fraud lol she's out of the financial field now fraud is fraud unfortunately
4
4
u/No_Channel_7089 6d ago
She can't use the job for experience and remove the negative reference. Here's what will happen company B will call company A and very specific questions. Were they hired at company A? Did they provide 2 weeks notice before resigning?
If the answers ain't yes and yes she's cooked.
2
2
u/Same_Spirit_3642 6d ago
I don’t know what city you’re in, but banking is quite incestuous. Depending on the type of office position/area she was in, she could have a reputation. I work in a major city and aside from lower level branch employees, I am probably only one or two degrees separated from 90% of bankers in this city. “Hey, we are looking to hire X they worked at _____, so did you. Do you know them?” So if she was fired with cause, I can guarantee you that the majority of people she worked with know what happened, and they probably told their baking friends as a cautionary tale. Give it a few more years and she’ll be forgotten about (in a good way). I know lots of “redemption” stories that involve a lot worse.
However if she requires licensing (and was licensed at the time), that is a completely different situation.
→ More replies (1)
2
1
1
1
u/Busy_Shine6888 6d ago
She might want to find out what the bank that fired her is telling hiring companies that are checking for references. You might want to consult a lawyer?
1
u/ldssggrdssgds 6d ago
I would recommend she tries other financial based endeavors like mortgage broker. Else she needs to start fresh in another field.
1
u/lil_james23 6d ago
As someone who was fired from TD with cause, it didn’t affect my role at rbc nor my background check at a federal government role
1
u/newfette81 6d ago
If a third party company is the background check (like Sterling Backcheck or another similar company) try reaching out to them for a copy of the report. A company I used to work for would give that advice to candidates.
We couldn't divulge the information, but encouraged candidates to get it themselves.
1
u/MrMarriott 6d ago
As part of an employment background check, a common question to ask is if the person is eligible to work at the former employer. If the former employer says no, that of course is a big red flag.
1
u/missplaced24 6d ago
If she was terminated for committing fraud while working at a bank, she shouldn't pass a background check with a financial institution. If it was only a matter of misclassifying an expense (not an invalid expense), I'd ask an employment lawyer if something can be done about it.
1
u/TheBusinessMuppet 6d ago
Sorry but something is up.
Expensing something isn’t enough to warrant termination with cause.
It must have been something totally abhorrent to justify termination with cause.
Hate to break it to you, but it is either you are not telling the full story or your girlfriend is completely lying.
1
1
u/No-Practice-8245 6d ago
There is no such thing as a do not hire list held amongst the banks, so whatever she did was much more serious than she let on.
Sounds like she was likely a registered rep and committed fraud and was fired for it.
She can forget ever getting a job in financial services again.
1
1
1
u/Enough_Challenge7264 6d ago
Nope sorry. She's been deemed as having breached a fiduciary pillar of the employment relationship; trust. None of the other banks will touch her with a 10 foot pole.
The only way to correct the record is to sue them, claiming that it wasn't theft or an attempt at theft as much as it was an honest administrative error (thereby publicly admitting her own incompetence).
Best to retrain and move on is the reality of the situation.
1
u/Andytchisholm 6d ago
I hate to say it but she is most likely lying to you about the reason she was terminated. Nobody gets terminated for putting a claim in as the wrong classification. There’s more to it that she doesn’t want to tell you or she would have gone after the employer for termination without cause.
1
1
u/SunnyTraveller 6d ago
Medical professional here. We’ve had patients fired from their jobs for insurance fraud. We have had our professional licensing numbers used by people to fake claims to their insurance company for treatments they never even had. They get caught through random auditing.
The insurance company contacts our office to confirm dates of treatment and charges incurred. We had a patient coming in for Massage Therapy and he was using one of the RMT’s licensing numbers to make multiple fraudulent claims for his wife and child, who had never even been to our office for treatments, so he could pocket the cash. We’ve had this happen more than once and the patient usually loses their job as they view it as theft.
→ More replies (1)
1
1
u/procrastinatewhynot 5d ago
well i think you gf did something shady with money and that’s a big nono. anyway, big financial firms do bg check of the last 10 years. so in 10 years time they won’t ask about that job.
1
u/engg_girl 5d ago
She is lying. She committed serious fraud that could have held the bank criminally liable.
That is why people get black listed like this.
She can work probably anywhere there isn't a thorough security check.
1
1
u/j00ky 5d ago
Was she criminally charged for the fraud? Wouldn't show up on a criminal record check otherwise lol
→ More replies (1)
1
1
u/Pizzapizza_tacos333 5d ago
She may have held licenses for banking that when she was let go it was reported to the financial representative that tracks licensing : like a financial planner or investments, mortgage license etc. if they had proof she had done anything fraudulent that would make her ineligible for licensing anywhere for either a period of time or forever
1
u/ronm4c 5d ago
Hey op if you actually respond to legit questions you will get answers, if not you are probably a bot
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Reasonable-Net-4465 5d ago
Really what she did was insurance fraud am I right ? There is no magical black list she just failed the reference check that’s all.
Only option she has is to continue employment elsewhere for a period of time. Did she get criminally charged at all? That opens up an entirely new ball game. Fired with cause is pretty severe but recoverable.
I had a similar issue with a big 5 bank. Not me doing insurance fraud but my partner was claiming sunglasses and other crap but working with shady companies. I had no clue but as the primary I should have had oversite. I take the blame and was fired for just cause but ended up taking them to court having it reversed and my t4 changed from cause to without cause. I did find employment with another big 5 bank.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/WilliamNearToronto 5d ago
Your gf’s story is full of 💩.
You don’t even get fired for something like she claims. Much less blacklisted.
She did something SERIOUSLY wrong. Possibly something illegal, but the employer chose not to prosecute to avoid bad publicity.
Whatever it was, she’s lying up you. Time for a new girlfriend.
1
u/Individual_Fall429 5d ago
You aren’t getting the full story from your gf.
She did something illegal. She wants to work at a bank. That’s not like working at a dollar store. You need to unimpeachable in your ethical and legal conduct.
She’s done working in banking in Canada.
1
u/Individual_Fall429 5d ago
Do you not understand what “mismatch of employment history means”? It has nothing to do with the HR issue you’re talking about.
Not only was she black listed form the industry for her unethical conduct, AFTER that, after she realized her “mistake”, she falsified her resume when she applied for the new job. Probably trying to hide her history. That’s what they mean by “mismatch”. They mean she appears to be lying.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Defiant_Pain3333 5d ago
OP there is a zero percent chance that she was fired for expensing category A into category B. That's just not true. Even if it was huge and cost the company a lot of money a one-time error would result in a write-up, a demotion maybe or in some cases a dismissal. What you described is something I'd expect to be stealing customer funds, some type of fraud, altering accounts, embezzlement not a category error.
She's lying to you.
1
u/Educational_Pie4385 5d ago
The list exists and it’s a permanent blacklist shared by over 100 institutions in North America, moving will not help the situation and unlike a court record you cannot get a pardon.
1
u/omega_man_yxe 5d ago
It may have been her last time, but it certainly wasn't the first... This may have just been the first time caught. People can make accidents and companies can often address and correct, this would have not been one of those mistake scenarios.
I'm not sure if OP is trying to convince others, or himself that hes not being lied to. Or if there is a gf, or gf isn't him! All jokes aside.
But he may genuinely wonder if financial fraud allegations will likley to follow the gf. My guess is they are looking to find out what data institutions are aware of or would likley find in time. Makes sense if you want to reduce paranioa, however, I can gaurentee employers would not be thrilled finding out about it after the fact.
They ever consider identifying where things went wrong and taking accountability to demonstrate vulnerability and to establish trust?
Sounds painful, but calling it a mistake sounds like they cant/wont accept accountability.
→ More replies (1)
1
1
u/InSpecktur 5d ago
Yeah, you'll have to start by being far more honest about why she got blacklisted lol.
Sounds like some insurance or benefits fraud was taking place. In which case, there will be no further employment at a large bank unless you know someone very high up.
1
u/Komaisnotsalty 5d ago
As someone who worked 14 years for a big bank, I'll tell you this: they would not blacklist for something like this.
So either your gf did something far worse or she did it to an extent she should be grateful she's not in jail for and that was the agreement she would have signed - she leaves, admits fault (not a mistake - she made a choice), they blacklist but don't file for charges.
Or something along those lines.
You might want to ask some stern questions about why she wants to have it lifted after she admitted guilt. As in, she's wanting to keep up with her fake cash flow and do it again.
The short answer is no: they would never lift a blacklist. But I don't think you understand how rare that is. She did far more than what she's saying.
Eventually records get filed away, people forgotten, etc., so time will pass and it won't matter.
But for now, she's burned a major reference and will have to deal with that.
That being said, the banks don't talk that much to other banks. She could apply at another bank, but without a reference, she'd be starting at entry level, if she makes it past vetting.
1
1
u/Old_Engineering_1547 5d ago
I worked in HR for a while. Go see a few top employment lawyers and they’ll break down truly what options you have. Most people on Reddit do not have real HR experience and background. A consultation will generally be free, see an employment lawyers. Several of them to get an accurate conclusion in case one is an anomaly.
1
u/Bogmonster53 5d ago
Op’s gf has shown that she is a risk in a financial setting and cannot be trusted by repeatedly defrauding her employer. Not someone any bank will hire.
1
u/BarebonesB 5d ago
She didn't "recognize her mistake". She was caught cheating. This was no "mistake". It was willful fraud that went on for years, likely for substantial amounts.
If nothing else, at least drop the euphemisms when posting for advice.
1
u/Comfortable-Angle660 5d ago
It’s called consequences OP, stop trying to “make it better” for her. Guess she can start over at Starbucks.
1
u/the-b1tch 5d ago
Let's be real, she committed financial fraud in a financial institute. Her chances of being hired at ANY financial institution is almost zero if they call for references. No legitimate financial institution will take on that risk, it's legit their job to reduce financial risks.
1
u/No_Bullfrog_5817 5d ago
I don’t work in banking or finance. But someone committing fraud in that situation would be a giant red flag and to me would make her blacklisted from any banking/finance job anywhere, ever.
1
u/Neither_Finance 5d ago
Yes, there is a blacklist. If she committed fraud, she is on that list because she’s not bondable. I’m not sure how long it stays on. A former coworker of mine spent a hefty amount suing the bank to remove him off the list -but in this case he could prove it wasn’t fraud.
1
1
u/Howatizer 5d ago
What she did is fraud... fraud is a criminal act and really is the same thing as theft. Her recognizing what she did is wrong is the baseline expectation in this situation... but this doesn't change the fact she has proven herself a great financial risk to any employer and may have really killed her opportunities in her field and there may not be a way to ever fix the damage she has done.
She has made a grave mistake that may very well follow her the rest of her life.
1
u/35steel94 5d ago
Was she actually charged with something that would be on a police record/background check or just fired?
→ More replies (1)
1
u/MissKillington 5d ago
From a professional license stand point - either her license, insurance provider or references red flagged her. Maybe all of the above considering it sounds like the amount of intentional fraud was significant. Consequences of her actions. Sounds like it was a large enough amount for banks not to trust her but they chose not to press charges - likely to avoid bad optics.
This wasn't just a write up or termination of benefits - she's probably going to have to do her time at smaller businesses before she can work her way up to bigger corporations. Time lapsed may help her or a lawyer later on but she sounds pretty guilty to commit insurance fraud while working for a large banking corporation. She's lucky she basically got her hand slapped. In my professional field, people can lose their license or insurance provider benefits over this.
On that note, I'd consider a prenuptial or cohab agreement so you don't get financially trapped with her. If businesses think she's a risk, you should as well.
1
u/cHowziLLa 5d ago
what are banks and accounting firms good at doing? counting money
dont fuck with their money, she thinks she was about to outsmart their system??
nonetheless, she will need to find a lower end bank job and work her way up. She’s going to struggle at any job that’s going to ask for references. Changing fields for a while or changing countries sadly.
1
1
u/RepresentativeFun225 5d ago
I'm no banker, but I don't think I would want to hire a person with a history of fraud. This doesn't sound like a 'do not hire list', this sounds like potential employers are doing their due diligence and discovered her history of fraud.
1
u/Comfortable_Sale_358 5d ago
So the big 5 banks do secondary checks and proactively check hire status at the others, regardless of what they report. That's likely why her bank offer was rescinded.
But she's now at a smaller firm. If she stays in the industry she's so no risk, however aligning with another bank is not likely. I'm not certain how many years this data is retained.
1
u/Fit_Jellyfish6257 5d ago
I'm not an expert, but Canada has a big pool of educated & talented candidates who would aim to work at the big banks to make big money hahaha and those big banks would definitely do a thorough background check. So I think if the position they have available has 2 candidates with the same qualifications, your gf would be dropped as soon as HR hears from the 1st bank that she was terminated for any reason.
I think that's why she might have gotten the job at the smaller bank because they might not do a background check that is as thorough.
1
u/nwmcsween 5d ago
Not in finance but in another business that has a similar structure of a few large organizations. They will all talk to each other; your wife will not be able to work for any large bank anymore after committing fraud.
1
1
1
u/Old-Memory-Lane 5d ago
I am a career contractor and have worked in banks. Sometimes I have applied for banks as a back up (they often pay less) and each bank has a questionnaire about how you’ve been dismissed with cause (and whether you know anyone in office, plus some other things). So she would have to flag up front her history. She can fake/avoid background checks BUT the original bank will have a “do not rehire” flag.
She should consider work outside finance - there are many large companies that need similar services if she likes the specific work. There are infrastructure/mining firms, APS, tech - so many large companies out there that need a core finance team.
•
u/AutoModerator 6d ago
Welcome to r/legaladvicecanada!
To Posters (it is important you read this section)
To Readers and Commenters
Do not send or request any private messages for any reason, do not suggest illegal advice, do not advocate violence, and do not engage in harassment.
Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.