Mainland citizens who take legal action to protect their rights may find themselves labeled as “risky” by companies during job applications due to their lawsuit records. According to reports, multiple job seekers have been rejected in the background check process because of their past litigation history.
Job applicant Liu Dan (pseudonym), as reported by the Chinese Youth Daily on September 15, had been cheated out of 70,000 yuan while working part-time. After reporting the incident to the police and following their advice, Liu Dan filed a lawsuit with the court. Being the plaintiff in the case, Liu Dan never expected that this lawful experience of protecting rights would affect his job search in the future.
Since the beginning of this year, Liu Dan has faced obstacles in three job applications during the background check phase, with companies discovering his lawsuit records each time. In one instance, after the background check was completed, the company’s human resources personnel inquired about any lawsuit records. Liu Dan promptly provided the lawsuit documents, court judgments, and enforcement documents for clarification but was ultimately not hired.
He later learned that some background check organizations would mark job applicants’ lawsuit records as a “yellow light”, indicating “medium risk, recommended to pay attention to”. It is left to the company’s leadership and human resources department to decide whether to hire them.
Another job seeker, Huang Ying (pseudonym), was involved in a lawsuit from years back related to an owners’ dispute. In 2020, Huang Ying, as one of the property owners in a residential community, signed documents to collectively sue the property management. Years later, she applied to a company through a headhunter, successfully passed the interview and salary negotiation, but was informed during the background check that there was a lawsuit record and was requested to provide a written explanation.
Huang Ying later searched the Chinese judgment document website and contacted the court but could not find any public records related to the case. It was only when she remembered the events of 2020 that she realized the lawsuit record mentioned by the background check organization might be linked to that case.
The investigation also discovered that some third-party background check organizations offer services that go beyond educational and work experience verification. One background check organization stated that they could inquire about the applicants’ identity, negative records, criminal history, lawsuit records, online loan records, and financial status. Their basic package costs 390 yuan per person, including labor arbitration, court involvement, and credit information, with reports available within 24 hours. The deep package costs 1190 yuan per person, adding verification of two work histories, educational credentials, and other items.
When asked whether undisclosed lawsuit information could be accessed, the response was that even if the relevant documents were taken down or not public, there are still channels to search for the case number, parties involved, and the type of dispute, without revealing specifics.
Xie Yongjiang, the Director of the Internet Governance and Law Research Center at Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, stated that the Chinese judgment document website only provides access to documents already published online, with non-public case files and internal arbitration materials not intended for public dissemination. He believes that these “channels” might involve the illegal sale of data, unauthorized access to internal systems, or the procurement of illegally obtained data from third-party databases.
From a legal perspective, Xie Yongjiang explained that litigation and arbitration records can only be cited as recruitment references when they directly demonstrate that the job seeker poses a significant real risk to the position or company interests. Negative online loan and financial records are generally only essential for specific positions related to finance and economics.
In actual recruitment processes, job seekers often find themselves in relatively disadvantaged positions. Interviewees mentioned that if companies use background checks as a condition for hiring and job seekers refuse to provide the necessary authorization, they may lose the job opportunity directly. On the other hand, a blanket authorization might lead to extensive collection of personal information unrelated to the position.
Liu Dan expressed difficulty in proving how the background check organizations obtained relevant lawsuit information, while Huang Ying is concerned that leaving behind lawsuit records for the sake of protecting rights could further impact her future job prospects.
With background checks becoming increasingly common in the recruitment process, defining the boundary between a company’s right to information and a job seeker’s right to privacy, as well as preventing irrelevant litigation, arbitration, and other information from becoming employment selection criteria, has become a pressing issue in the job market.