• Page :
  • 1
  • Text Only
Voting History
rated:
Why the finance forum? I'm out a week of wages and future employment opportunities may be affected.

I applied for a job. Interview went well. Agreed to background check via HireRight and did the drug test. Start date was on day X. Friday before day X, company calls to say there is some irregularity with the background check and mentions something that happened in the county I live in (and asks if there is anything I haven't disclosed). I explained that I have no idea what it could be and mention the only court record applying to me (see next paragraph). They pushed back the start date one week.

The only court record is for a 1-9 MPH over the limit traffic citation. I bargained this down from the original citation with the clerk of courts and per the clerk, I did not show up for the court date and simply paid the fine after the judgment date (no driving school offered here). Typical court record with nothing untoward.

On day X, I receive an email from HR explaining that the irregularity was due to the above and that it was my fault for not disclosing this to them but all is fine and I'll start on day Y.

Question - Re: wages: Should I simply accept I'm out a week of wages? I had a verbal agreement on a start date and I acted in good faith. No form asked me to disclose traffic citations or anything of the sort as far as I am aware (the job has no commercial driving responsibilities).

Question - Re: "HireRight": Why would a background check flag on a traffic citation? HireRight claims they are a quick way to narrow down applicants. I suspect in the future other companies using HireRight might simply toss my resume. In my state, I do not have any right to view the report (it looks like 4 states do have provisions for this). Any recommendations on what I should do?

I'm actually more concerned about the second question than the first. I am disgruntled at the loss of wages and the behavior of the company but suspect I don't have any options for recourse. Regular poster here at FatWallet but posting with a new account for obvious reasons.

Member Summary
Most Recent Posts
As Lorcha mentioned this is fairly common. As somone else said, some companies will pay employees even if they let them... (more)

aeiouy (May. 19, 2008 @ 3:30a) |

I wish I had this option, but in my industry, it's all but impossible. And, unfortunately, I need to keep earning a sal... (more)

thok (May. 20, 2008 @ 10:38a) |

I didn't know that there were any states that allow people to collect unemployment after quitting. Which do you know of... (more)

InterestedOnlooker (Jun. 06, 2008 @ 11:16a) |

States in which HireRight (or the report requesting agency) will give you copies of your report:

California - Section 1786.22 of the California Civil Code allows you to view the file maintained by HireRight on you during business hours.
New York - Right to request name of organization requesting report and get a copy of the consumer report from the requesting agency.
Maine - Similar to New York.
Washington State - Similar to New York but can get report directly from HireRight.

Note that only California provides access to the full file while the other states only provide access to any consumer reports that HireRight pulls.
Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

As far as the wages go, I think it's fair to say that yes, you're out of a week of wages. Chances are the forms you signed and the offer letter you received claim that a successful background check is needed before you start work.

As far as HireRight... I've dealt with them before. I had to disclose a 25+ speeding violation for another internal check with the company. As of last year, it still showed up on my state driving record. I know this because I had to fax a driving record release form to them... They do check driving records probably looking for DUIs or such. Nothing else to look for here... just be glad they hired you.

Also, Hireright probably pulled hard on your credit file... pulled Transunion for me... as for that reasoning... probably to make sure that the person isn't a deadbeat and doesn't pay their bills and such... characteristics like that end usually end up being reflected in the workplace as well.

luiset83 said: As far as HireRight... I've dealt with them before. I had to disclose a 25+ speeding violation for another internal check with the company. As of last year, it still showed up on my state driving record. They do check driving records for some reason... probably looking for DUIs or such. Nothing else to look for here... just be glad they hired you.
How did the need to disclose the speeding ticket come up? I suspect that the company should have requested this information from me but did not do so. For any future jobs, would you have a letter drafted with disclosures like the speeding ticket to provide after successful negotiations? I'd like to avoid any repeat of this in the future as the company representative seemed to think I'd fail to disclose something horrible and I was left to stew for a weekend wondering what horrible crime HireRight was attributing to me.

I'm happy it all worked out but it seemed poorly handled. I'm glad I have no worries about credit scores or reports thanks in part to this forum.

Foreground said: How did the need to disclose the speeding ticket come up? I suspect that the company should have requested this information from me but did not do so. For any future jobs, would you have a letter drafted with disclosures like the speeding ticket to provide after successful negotiations? I'd like to avoid any repeat of this in the future as the company representative seemed to think I'd fail to disclose something horrible and I was left to stew for a weekend wondering what horrible crime HireRight was attributing to me.

I'm happy it all worked out but it seemed poorly handled. I'm glad I have no worries about credit scores or reports thanks in part to this forum.


It actually wasn't related to HireRight, but later on when a security clearance was involved in which one of the questions asked to explicitly state similar offenses... so in that sense I was pretty much asked for it. I think initially there is no real 'room' to have anything disclosed, unless it was in your main job application if you did one, and perhaps overlooked it.

I don't think any disclosures are necessary unless a future company asks for one (doubtful). Other than any public records searching/credit/drivers license checks, I don't think HireRight looks for anything else... perhaps someone else can expand on specifics.

At any rate, chances are by the time you look for your next job the minor violation might not even be relevant, they might just be searching for recent things.

How much do you plan to make per week? Over your career, you'll easily make it back in swiped office supplies

Rule to follow is never resign from your current position until it is a firm offer with all background and drug testing completed. I think you are out a week of wages, though if you had a nice boss they could throw you a comp day or two.

sounds like you got a FTA (failure to appear) on that ticket.

OmegaDeal said: Rule to follow is never resign from your current position until it is a firm offer with all background and drug testing completed. I think you are out a week of wages, though if you had a nice boss they could throw you a comp day or two.
It's actually a bit complicated but I'll certainly heed that advice in the future.

ArbolLoco said: sounds like you got a FTA (failure to appear) on that ticket.
Yes, I did. Is it good to avoid a FTA? I wondered at the time about that advice so I confirmed with the Clerk of Courts that no appearance was necessary but perhaps appearance is recommended?

Foreground said: OmegaDeal said: Rule to follow is never resign from your current position until it is a firm offer with all background and drug testing completed. I think you are out a week of wages, though if you had a nice boss they could throw you a comp day or two.
It's actually a bit complicated but I'll certainly heed that advice in the future.

ArbolLoco said: sounds like you got a FTA (failure to appear) on that ticket.
Yes, I did. Is it good to avoid a FTA? I wondered at the time about that advice so I confirmed with the Clerk of Courts that no appearance was necessary but perhaps appearance is recommended?
Should be obvious to you now to avoid a failure to appear. Always show up at court when directed on your summons, if only to have it officially recorded that you did appear and all charges have been dropped. Do not take verbal assertions from anyone that your case is "finished", get it in writing from the court.

FTA is a bench warrant (aka many times no bond offense). pretty serious.

Now it is clear to me. I have little experience with the court system but I can see how a failure to appear would cause a red flag as it looks like I blew off the court date. A careful examination of the court record would show the reduced charge and my attention to correcting the wrong address on the ticket. I don't think a judge would normally reduce a charge for someone that failed to appear! But I wouldn't expect a normal review of a record to catch those subtle points.

I thank you all for the input (even the office supplies guy ). Without posting here, I would still be in the dark regarding exactly why the there was a red flag (and why I should always go to the court date).

Update: I spoke with a police officer and in our state the court appearance is optional. A non-appearance means default judgement of guilty. It is standard advice to not show up in court if you are not contesting the citation (and this is actually noted on tickets). Is the standard advice bad? Or is HireRight attempting to use the same standards nationally and making a mistake? Or did the hiring company overreact?

A friend of mine was contracting for a major Wall Street investment house when he got an offer for full-time employment from another one. There was no matter of giving notice, as his current contract was up in two months and hadn't been renewed. When he got the signed written offer, he stopped his job search, turned down two other offers and canceled a few interviews.

Long story short, he failed the background check and they revoked the offer, he had a serious case of heartburn for a while but eventually got a job somewhere else. Why did he fail the background check? Typo on his resume.

Until you start your job, I don't think you have any recourse, unfortunately. Neither do they, though, if you get a better offer and decide to renege on your acceptance.

In a related story, I got fired once, on the day I gave my two weeks' notice. My new employer moved my start date up a week so I only lost a week's wages instead of two, but it still sucked.

You'd like to think that you're doing the right thing by giving your current employer ample notice, not stringing other suiters along once you've accepted an offer, etc. Things don't always work out that way.

Dude no need to get off on the wrong foot with the new job. Let it go.

thok said: A friend of mine was contracting for a major Wall Street investment house when he got an offer for full-time employment from another one. There was no matter of giving notice, as his current contract was up in two months and hadn't been renewed. When he got the signed written offer, he stopped his job search, turned down two other offers and canceled a few interviews.

Long story short, he failed the background check and they revoked the offer, he had a serious case of heartburn for a while but eventually got a job somewhere else. Why did he fail the background check? Typo on his resume.

Until you start your job, I don't think you have any recourse, unfortunately. Neither do they, though, if you get a better offer and decide to renege on your acceptance.

In a related story, I got fired once, on the day I gave my two weeks' notice. My new employer moved my start date up a week so I only lost a week's wages instead of two, but it still sucked.

You'd like to think that you're doing the right thing by giving your current employer ample notice, not stringing other suiters along once you've accepted an offer, etc. Things don't always work out that way.


I would be curious what type of typo causes them to not hire someone?

I've heard of people asked not to remain the two weeks and I'm curious could you file unemployment for those two weeks? Technically you quit two weeks out so they are firing you. But I could be wrong.

thok said: In a related story, I got fired once, on the day I gave my two weeks' notice. [...] You'd like to think that you're doing the right thing by giving your current employer ample notice, not stringing other suiters along once you've accepted an offer, etc. Things don't always work out that way.Why do you say you were "fired"? It's actually fairly common for an employer not to make you work out your last two weeks after you give notice. This isn't considered a negative, just a recognition that many employees are not so productive during their final 2 weeks.

alex1432 said: I would be curious what type of typo causes them to not hire someone?A date, perhaps? If you say you worked at Acme Widgets, Inc. during 2006, and HR calls Acme and ask if you worked there in 2006 and they say, "No", then many HR departments will circular-file your resume.

I guess I'm kinda curious what job or profession is so hung up on a traffic ticket?

I guess they probably have their reasons but you are probably out of a weeks worth of pay due to this because employment is contigent on passing the background check which you didn't really.

As for typo's and mistakes on background checks, they happen all the time just like errors on a credit report. I my self have a common name, so even a incorrect middle initial could tie my info with someone else's.

You are entitled to normal/general copy of your background reports if requested by you (from choicepoint etc). However you have to pay extra for background searches. It usually pays to check your background report prior to looking for new employment.

I should also say you can usually correct any miss info on them and or add a statement, but the burden of proof is on you to prove your claims.

alex1432 said: I've heard of people asked not to remain the two weeks and I'm curious could you file unemployment for those two weeks? Technically you quit two weeks out so they are firing you. But I could be wrong.

Usually there is a waiting period between the time you are terminated and the time you can begin receiving unemployment benefits.

lorcha said: thok said: In a related story, I got fired once, on the day I gave my two weeks' notice. [...] You'd like to think that you're doing the right thing by giving your current employer ample notice, not stringing other suiters along once you've accepted an offer, etc. Things don't always work out that way.Why do you say you were "fired"? It's actually fairly common for an employer not to make you work out your last two weeks after you give notice. This isn't considered a negative, just a recognition that many employees are not so productive during their final 2 weeks.



Or that you will poach clients or take important information with you. The important thing is to watch how your company treats resigning employees. If they walk people out the door upon giving notice, you need to have a long memory and respond accordingly when you resign.

alex1432 said:
I would be curious what type of typo causes them to not hire someone?


One letter turns a BBA to a MBA, and the letters are frighteningly close together on the keyboard...

alex1432 said: I would be curious what type of typo causes them to not hire someone?

It was a date, yes; I don't remember for sure, but I believe he listed a start (or end) date as June 2000 when it was really June 2001 or vice-versa. It wasn't his most recent job, or the one before that; it was a few back.

As part of the background check they asked him to fill out a form with employment history for the past 10 years. When he filled out the form he didn't have the typo, so the form didn't match his resume on that one date.

I don't know if they actually conducted the background check or rescinded the offer as soon as they noticed the mismatch. They pulled the offer b/c they said it was based on his resume, which was inaccurate.

They actually blacklisted him, too. Several years later a headhunter was circulating his (now correct) resume, and it got a lot of interest from one of the managers at this same firm, but as soon as the manager went to HR to get approval for an offer, it got shut down. The manager would only say that HR vetoed the offer but of course my friend knew why.

I'm not going to say who this firm is, but they are known for this kind of petty bullshit. I worked there myself for a time a number of years ago, and I remember them firing a long-time (10+ year) employee in his late 40's when a misdemeanor pot conviction from his college days came to light.

alex1432 said: I've heard of people asked not to remain the two weeks and I'm curious could you file unemployment for those two weeks? Technically you quit two weeks out so they are firing you. But I could be wrong.

Maybe, I don't know, I didn't try. Didn't even occur to me. It was only one week since my new employer moved the date up.

Just curious: can anyone check their own background to make sure everything is accurate?

gosocks said: lorcha said: thok said: In a related story, I got fired once, on the day I gave my two weeks' notice. [...] You'd like to think that you're doing the right thing by giving your current employer ample notice, not stringing other suiters along once you've accepted an offer, etc. Things don't always work out that way.Why do you say you were "fired"? It's actually fairly common for an employer not to make you work out your last two weeks after you give notice. This isn't considered a negative, just a recognition that many employees are not so productive during their final 2 weeks.



Or that you will poach clients or take important information with you. The important thing is to watch how your company treats resigning employees. If they walk people out the door upon giving notice, you need to have a long memory and respond accordingly when you resign.


Except that better employers will often pay you for any time remaining in that 2 week period if they do ask you to leave earlier. So it's still best to give your 2 weeks and *hope* they ask you to leave before the two weeks are up, but pay you for the difference. I work in a technology-related field and the employers often have legitimate concerns (low productivity is the least of them, the much more significant concerns relate to theft of trade secrets, customer lists, pricing schedules, etc.). Even when there are no hard feelings towards the departing employee, we don't want them around given the risks. They also tend to poison the minds of remaining employees, and it leads to lower moral, etc. So instead we thank them and send them on their way, but pay them salary for 2 weeks.

Yeah I would think that firing a person on the same day you give your two weeks would be against some labor law but at the very least it is really scummy to fire somone that just gave you notice that they were leaving. If I worked for a company like that I would be tempted to give them no notice at all when I left...

chimeer said: Yeah I would think that firing a person on the same day you give your two weeks would be against some labor law but at the very least it is really scummy to fire somone that just gave you notice that they were leaving. If I worked for a company like that I would be tempted to give them no notice at all when I left...

Chances are you wouldn't know until it's too late.

rigor said: FTA is a bench warrant (aka many times no bond offense). pretty serious.usually they'll issue a bench warrant and stay it.

Kanosh said: Foreground said: OmegaDeal said: Rule to follow is never resign from your current position until it is a firm offer with all background and drug testing completed. I think you are out a week of wages, though if you had a nice boss they could throw you a comp day or two.
It's actually a bit complicated but I'll certainly heed that advice in the future.

ArbolLoco said: sounds like you got a FTA (failure to appear) on that ticket.
Yes, I did. Is it good to avoid a FTA? I wondered at the time about that advice so I confirmed with the Clerk of Courts that no appearance was necessary but perhaps appearance is recommended?
Should be obvious to you now to avoid a failure to appear. Always show up at court when directed on your summons, if only to have it officially recorded that you did appear and all charges have been dropped. Do not take verbal assertions from anyone that your case is "finished", get it in writing from the court.
in LA County about 20% of people don't show up for criminal court on any given day.

So what exactly is this Hireright crap?

We need to push for disclosure. I find it absurd that someone has info on us and we cannot get it.

chocula said: So what exactly is this Hireright crap?

We need to push for disclosure. I find it absurd that someone has info on us and we cannot get it.


You mean like DHS, FBI, TSA, NSA, etc?

...yeah, it sucks.

These are all good reasons to NOT work for a company that requires a background check.

For a job that involves a security clearance I can understand it, but for anything else, forget it. It seems that many companies have taken the whole "spirit" of the "Patriot" Act's breaches on civil liberties and used it as license to bring the concept of invading privacy into the private sector. They only get away with it because we, the people, have become docile, complacent, and compliant. Screw that. I have never worked at a company that requires a background check--and I never will. And yes, I have turned down jobs because of the requirement. Too bad--they lost an excellent candidate.

If enough people do the same it will create a labor shortage and companies will be forced to drop this invasive requirement. Have some backbone, people!

As for the one week's salary ... fuggetaboutit. You start making a fuss about it you will be labeled as a troublemaker from day one. The only exception to this is if you are working in sales, in which case it is deemed acceptable, indeed it is expected of you, to be vocal and aggressive about compensation.

pushback said: These are all good reasons to NOT work for a company that requires a background check.

For a job that involves a security clearance I can understand it, but for anything else, forget it. It seems that many companies have taken the whole "spirit" of the "Patriot" Act's breaches on civil liberties and used it as license to bring the concept of invading privacy into the private sector. They only get away with it because we, the people, have become docile, complacent, and compliant. Screw that. I have never worked at a company that requires a background check--and I never will. And yes, I have turned down jobs because of the requirement. Too bad--they lost an excellent candidate.

If enough people do the same it will create a labor shortage and companies will be forced to drop this invasive requirement. Have some backbone, people!

As for the one week's salary ... fuggetaboutit. You start making a fuss about it you will be labeled as a troublemaker from day one. The only exception to this is if you are working in sales, in which case it is deemed acceptable, indeed it is expected of you, to be vocal and aggressive about compensation.


Imagine if your 15 year old daughter worked for a company that didn't require a background check. Would you want her potentially working with convicted felons? Being in HR, I have seen everything under the sun (except murder). I have seen candidates with convicted crimes of sexual assault of a child on numerous counts, grand theft auto, intent to distribute cocaine, statutory rape, fraud, etc. Businesses have an obligation to protect their employees and customers. If the charge is substantially related to the job, they can't hire them. Many states, it is a law and I have seen many cases where a business was sued and charged with negligent hiring. I have seen a franchisee literally lose his business because of it.

isobro said: pushback said: These are all good reasons to NOT work for a company that requires a background check.

For a job that involves a security clearance I can understand it, but for anything else, forget it. It seems that many companies have taken the whole "spirit" of the "Patriot" Act's breaches on civil liberties and used it as license to bring the concept of invading privacy into the private sector. They only get away with it because we, the people, have become docile, complacent, and compliant. Screw that. I have never worked at a company that requires a background check--and I never will. And yes, I have turned down jobs because of the requirement. Too bad--they lost an excellent candidate.

If enough people do the same it will create a labor shortage and companies will be forced to drop this invasive requirement. Have some backbone, people!

As for the one week's salary ... fuggetaboutit. You start making a fuss about it you will be labeled as a troublemaker from day one. The only exception to this is if you are working in sales, in which case it is deemed acceptable, indeed it is expected of you, to be vocal and aggressive about compensation.


Imagine if your 15 year old daughter worked for a company that didn't require a background check. Would you want her potentially working with convicted felons? Being in HR, I have seen everything under the sun (except murder). I have seen candidates with convicted crimes of sexual assault of a child on numerous counts, grand theft auto, intent to distribute cocaine, statutory rape, fraud, etc. Businesses have an obligation to protect their employees and customers. If the charge is substantially related to the job, they can't hire them. Many states, it is a law and I have seen many cases where a business was sued and charged with negligent hiring. I have seen a franchisee literally lose his business because of it.


My old assistant manager was dead-set on hiring this guy. I did not like him, but decided to let him make the decision.

His background check came back and he had a conviction of statutory rape in his past. You never know the truth about someone without those checks.

chocula said: isobro said: pushback said: These are all good reasons to NOT work for a company that requires a background check.

For a job that involves a security clearance I can understand it, but for anything else, forget it. It seems that many companies have taken the whole "spirit" of the "Patriot" Act's breaches on civil liberties and used it as license to bring the concept of invading privacy into the private sector. They only get away with it because we, the people, have become docile, complacent, and compliant. Screw that. I have never worked at a company that requires a background check--and I never will. And yes, I have turned down jobs because of the requirement. Too bad--they lost an excellent candidate.

If enough people do the same it will create a labor shortage and companies will be forced to drop this invasive requirement. Have some backbone, people!

As for the one week's salary ... fuggetaboutit. You start making a fuss about it you will be labeled as a troublemaker from day one. The only exception to this is if you are working in sales, in which case it is deemed acceptable, indeed it is expected of you, to be vocal and aggressive about compensation.


Imagine if your 15 year old daughter worked for a company that didn't require a background check. Would you want her potentially working with convicted felons? Being in HR, I have seen everything under the sun (except murder). I have seen candidates with convicted crimes of sexual assault of a child on numerous counts, grand theft auto, intent to distribute cocaine, statutory rape, fraud, etc. Businesses have an obligation to protect their employees and customers. If the charge is substantially related to the job, they can't hire them. Many states, it is a law and I have seen many cases where a business was sued and charged with negligent hiring. I have seen a franchisee literally lose his business because of it.


My old assistant manager was dead-set on hiring this guy. I did not like him, but decided to let him make the decision.

His background check came back and he had a conviction of statutory rape in his past. You never know the truth about someone without those checks.
I had a drug conviction one time that didn't come back for six months from the DOJ. of course the guy was sociopath and talked my dumb boss into lending him $3k before he split.

Somehow we all managed just fine before the information age when it was not quite as easy to invade the privacy of others. As far as I am concerned I own my personal information and I am unwilling to share it with business or potential business associates, such as a perspective employer. It befuddles me that so many are willing to roll over to the whim of another and submit to this intrusion. I will gladly accept the imperfect, non-Orwellian world, and the risks that go with it in exchange for the elimination of all such violations.

I have been a hiring director a few times. I have managed to put together very highly regarded technical engineering teams with little attrition--and I did it without the "benefit" of background checks. I don't want to live in a coddled society where we give up our privacy and liberties. That's WAY to high a price for me, but if you want to live in a world where huge effort is expended to ensure that risk is minimised--along with your freedom--because you can't have one without the other, you go on ahead and do that. Not only won't I do it, I don't want to be around complacent people, who lack the critical thinking gene, and submit to this behaviour either. Lemmings--all of them. Right off the cliff.

In the meantime, I recommend that if you value your civil liberties and privacy you tell anyone who insists that you submit to a background check to bugger off. For the rest of you, just be careful because you just might get what you wish for.

chimeer said: Yeah I would think that firing a person on the same day you give your two weeks would be against some labor law but at the very least it is really scummy to fire somone that just gave you notice that they were leaving. If I worked for a company like that I would be tempted to give them no notice at all when I left...

As Lorcha mentioned this is fairly common. As somone else said, some companies will pay employees even if they let them go.

Let us clarify this though. Someone is not being fired in this case.

The person QUIT. They resigned. They said they no longer want the job. Extending the two weeks to the company is a courtesy. It is not a courtesy a company is required to keep. I would advise that in most cases it is a BAD idea to keep someone around for two weeks after they QUIT.

So when someone QUITS, and a company says we no longer need you then, they are simply accepting the resignation and declining the offer of them to work two more weeks.

Whenever you quit a job you should expect that you will be terminated at that time, unless you have some kind of prior arrangement.

There are security reasons, competitive reasons, and morale reasons why companies do this.. but let it be clear, they are not firing you. If you went to collect unemployment in a state where quitting does not allow you unemployment, you would not be eligible.

A well run business is going to be able to function with the loss of anyone there on short notice, so it should not be a problem to let someone go who quits.

pushback said: These are all good reasons to NOT work for a company that requires a background check.

For a job that involves a security clearance I can understand it, but for anything else, forget it. It seems that many companies have taken the whole "spirit" of the "Patriot" Act's breaches on civil liberties and used it as license to bring the concept of invading privacy into the private sector. They only get away with it because we, the people, have become docile, complacent, and compliant. Screw that. I have never worked at a company that requires a background check--and I never will. And yes, I have turned down jobs because of the requirement. Too bad--they lost an excellent candidate.

If enough people do the same it will create a labor shortage and companies will be forced to drop this invasive requirement. Have some backbone, people!


I wish I had this option, but in my industry, it's all but impossible. And, unfortunately, I need to keep earning a salary more than they need to employ me.

For me, as a consultant, it's even worse... nearly every client wants to perform a background check of its own as well. It's like starting a new job several times every year.

I've lost track of how many times I've been fingerprinted, asked to pee in a cup, filled out forms demanding 10 years' residential and employment history, etc.

Thank goodness I don't have any felonies on my record. If I did, I'd probably be working in McDonald's now.

aeiouy said: If you went to collect unemployment in a state where quitting does not allow you unemployment, you would not be eligible.

I didn't know that there were any states that allow people to collect unemployment after quitting. Which do you know of? Thanks.



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

TRUSTe online privacy certification

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2014