Monday, January 23, 2012

Wrong Identity

A few weeks ago I interviewed at Lowe's.  I like the store and it wouldn't require me buying new clothes to work there.  Sounds ridiculous but logic is necessary!  Interview seemed to go well.  Several days later I heard from them and I didn't get any of the jobs I had applied for.  Oh well.

Then...

A few days after that I get two different letters in the mail.  One from Lowe's and one from a background check company.  They both informed me that Lowe's found some information pertaining to my criminal history.  Lowe's put a nice little quote on theres that simply said this may or may not have had anything to do with your employment status with Lowe's.  Apparently, I have been in jail 3 times.  Yep.  Once including this past July.

WHAT!?

I call the Lowe's HR lady and explain to her the situation.  She went through a 2 year period where someone in her town had the exact same name.  Main difference that other lady was a felon.  She said the CPS tried to come get her children once and all sorts of madness happened during that time.  She told me to get off the phone with her and call the background company back ASAP.

Currently, I am in dispute with that company.  They only use first name, last name and birthday to look people up.  To me that is ridiculous!  They said it's a common problem and should be fixed in 15 to 30 days.  What are the odds is all I keep asking.  What are the odds?

Tomorrow I will be meeting with the high school principle for the school that's across the street.  Hopefully, I can at least get on the substitute teaching list to bring in some money until I can find other work.  Continually I am reminded the Lord has never not taken care of my needs so why even entertain the thought that that is about to happen.

Going to go try to stay out of jail from now on!

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Wrongly diagnosed identity is a defense throughout criminal law which claims the actual innocence in the criminal opponent, and makes an attempt to undermine proof guilt by means of asserting that any eyewitness on the crime inaccurately thought that they can saw the defendant, when in truth the person seen by the witness was other people. The opponent may question both memory in the witness, as well as the perception in the witness.

Buy cheap essay service