After leaving university job, woman faces suspicious background checks in interviews

A reader who asked to be identified only as Krista has shared her experience following the end of her employment at one of Latvia's largest universities. She describes working there for nine months in what she calls a toxic environment, where the department director regularly shared gossip about well-known figures at the university with other subordinates, and where a so-called "mobbing wall" reportedly existed between departments. The situation eventually led Krista to start taking medication, and she ultimately left the position by mutual agreement once she had worked long enough to qualify for unemployment benefits.

After leaving, Krista began searching for new work, but several interviews left her with the impression that employers already had information about her from her former director. In one case, a human resources manager opened the interview by demanding an explanation of what Krista had supposedly done wrong at the university. Krista stresses that she never gave any of these prospective employers permission to contact her former manager, nor was she asked to provide a reference contact. Meanwhile, her five years of prior experience at a private company, where the owner has offered to give a reference, drew no interest from prospective employers.

What the Data State Inspectorate says

LA.LV contacted the Data State Inspectorate (DVI) to clarify how candidates' personal data should be protected in such situations. The inspectorate explains that contacting a previous employer is not inherently prohibited, since employers may have legitimate reasons to verify facts stated in a CV. However, verifying stated facts must be distinguished from gathering broader information about a candidate, and the latter requires a legal basis and must follow the principle of data minimization. Listing a previous employer on a CV does not automatically count as consent to obtain a reference, and best practice is to inform candidates in advance if references will be sought.

The DVI notes that suspicion alone is not proof — specific interview questions do not by themselves prove that an employer actually contacted a former manager. When information is shared only by phone, proving the content of such a conversation can be very difficult in practice. If a person suspects false or reputation-damaging information is being spread outside the scope of data protection law, that issue would need to be resolved through civil proceedings.

Krista emphasizes that she had no disciplinary issues during her employment. She hopes the case draws more attention to workplace mobbing, adding that in her experience toxic management tactics are used only by weak, unprofessional leaders.