Home Depot Revises Policy After It Sent A Sex Offender To Work In A Single Woman's Home

Back in May Boston’s ABC 5 tracked down a convicted sex offender who was working as an unlicensed contractor for Home Depot. Not only was the guy a registered sex offender…he didn’t even refinish cabinets well.

Home Depot promised changes and now ABC 5 is following up:

Team 5 Investigates obtained Home Depot’s most recent online reference guide for service providers who are sent to customers’ homes, and it shows significant changes to what has been published in the past. “I think this is a step in the direction of tightening up the requirements and recognizing the public needs to have confidence and know that it’s going to be safe to have these contractors doing the work,” said professor Jim Post of Boston University’s School of Management.

The most significant changes relate to background checks. There are now new obligations for those who are supposed to be doing them and an increase in how often they’re supposed to performed. Home Depot is also demanding that service providers verify the identity and social security number for each worker. A failure to do so could result in hefty fines.

Workers must also wear a new type of badge to show they’ve met the new requirements. If they don’t, the fine is $500. Licensing infractions, including a failure to pull permits, could cost a contractor $1,000. And for every consumer complaint filed with an attorney general’s office where the service provider fails to demonstrate an effort to resolve the complaint, that service provider is subject to a $2,500 penalty. “It certainly shows that they’re serious about making sure the quality of service that’s delivered to customers is consistent with the standards that they’ve set,” said Post.

Consumer should take note of that last bit and complaint to their attorney general if Home Depots contractors fail to live up to their promises. Or, you know, don’t use Home Depot’s contractors.

Home Depot Makes Policy Changes After Team 5 Investigation [ABC 5]
(Photo:Maulliegh)

PREVIOUSLY: Home Depot Sent Registered Sex Offender To Refinish Single Woman’s Cabinets

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. TheBigLewinski says:

    Perhaps this guy was a good RUG cleaner…

  2. mopar_man says:

    don’t use Home Depot’s contractors.

    That’s the best advice there is for home improvement situations.

  3. savvy says:

    Because, you know, it’s okay to send sex offenders to work in married women’s homes? or men’s homes? or nursing homes?

  4. CumaeanSibyl says:

    @savvy: Oh no, not this debate again.

    I think the emphasis on the customer being a single woman is mainly to say that she was more likely to become a victim in that situation, given that most sexual assault victims are female and that she would almost certainly be alone in the house with him. It’s obviously not okay to send sex offenders to work in private homes without informing the residents and giving them the option of having someone else do the work; on the other hand, a woman alone in the house (single or with a partner who’s elsewhere) is in more danger than a man, or a couple, or a group of people would be.

    Obviously, that danger also exists to some degree with contractors who are not registered sex offenders, but there’s more reason to suspect that someone who’s committed a crime once might do so again. I wouldn’t want a convicted thief in my house either.

  5. savvy says:

    @CumaeanSibyl: it depends on his offense, he could have also been a pedophile. I just don’t see why her marital status is relevant to the story.

  6. Toof_75_75 says:

    @savvy:

    It has nothing to do with her marital status…it’s just to say that it was more likely she was by herself, therefore being an easier target if this guy decided to try something.

  7. Godz says:

    @savvy: It was just explained to you and it makes perfect sense.

  8. Skyoodpov says:

    @TheBigLewinski:

    Two drums and a high-hat fall off a cliff…

    Ba-Doom Chish!

  9. savvy says:

    @Godz: No, it’s crappy journalism.

  10. Meg Marco says:

    @savvy: Single as in likely to be alone in her home, which does matter. It is not “ok” to send sex offenders to anyone’s home.

  11. jeffeb3 says:

    @meghannmarco: “It is not “ok” to send sex offenders to anyone’s home.”
    I’m not sure that blanket statement is really true. Am I the only person that thinks that maybe people should get a second chance?

  12. Upsilon says:

    @Meghannmarco
    What about a halfway home?

    Ba-Doom Chish!

  13. Meg Marco says:

    @jeffeb3: [consumerist.com]

    Considering what (may have) happened in Chicago, I think there are probably more appropriate jobs for them, but that’s simply my opinion.

  14. Bourque77 says:

    @jeffeb3: I might would agree with you on most things. People do deserve second chances however they dont need to be alone with a customer if they commit a crime like that.


    “It certainly shows that they’re serious about making sure the quality of service that’s delivered to customers is consistent with the standards that they’ve set,”

    No to me it shows they want to avoid lawsuits from customers when they find out just who home depot lets come to their home.

  15. Thrust says:

    @jeffeb3: I’ll side with you based on the fact that some people do rehabilitate in prison, and thus deserve a second chance. Repeat offenders for any type of crime, no way, but one-timers.

    ESPECIALLY in the case of sex offenders, it’s important to know that some people on that list don’t belong there. A guy was drunk and took a leak on the side of a building somewhere in the US (forget where, but the article is still buried in Fark’s archives). This family man, who got drunk at a friend’s batchelor party, was just taking a leak. Now he’s a sex offender, had to move to a different area of the city because sex offenders loose the right to live wherever they want, and now his young daughter is growing up in a neighborhood full of pedos and pervs because dad had a full bladder and a fogged head.

    Or the case of a guy sitting in jail RIGHT NOW, because he had sex with an 17-year-old when he was 18. OOOOh. He’s one sick puppy, she’s a year younger, that’s just wrong. Anna-Nicole marrying someone with decades on her is alright, but she’s 17. Old enough to drive, in Canada she can drink and buy smokes in most provinces, and for the love of Cthulhu people, there are kids pregnant or mothers at 13, 14, and 15. 17 ain’t a big deal. But now he’s in jail.

    THIS guy Hobodepot sent was said to be a repeat offender of violent crimes. No I would not hire him, or let him EVER come into contact with customers. But the brand “sex offeder” doesn’t differentiate between him, and Mr fullbladder. Homodepot shouldn’t reject people without reviewing facts. This is the kind of thing better decided through individuals using common sense, not set rules that apply to all.

  16. CumaeanSibyl says:

    @jeffeb3: I’m all for second chances, but there are plenty of jobs out there that don’t put the worker into close proximity with a customer, alone. For contractors, there’s new construction and industrial renovation. For non-contractors, there’s a huge range of retail, service, and office jobs. Restricting jobs that involve entering a customer’s house to people who haven’t been convicted of theft or violent crime is not going to deny all employment to those with criminal records.

  17. gorckat says:

    So do all those penalties reduce the customer’s bill?

  18. Gloria says:

    @Thrust: I’m going to nitpick at you, but no, 17 is too young to drink or smoke in all provinces and territories. The youngest possible age for either of those activities is 18 (usually in Quebec — those French hippies!), and the most common is 19.

    Just in case any kids are reading and aching for a road trip.

  19. Saboth says:

    @gorckat:

    Heh I was wondering the same thing. “If the contractor doesn’t meet the so and so standard, they are subject to $1,000 fine. If they skip this other thing, they are subject to $2,500 fine”. Hmm that’s great…I suppose those fees go to Home Depot, not the consumer.