ORDER A REPORT
SECURE FILE UPLOAD

Scherzer Blog

International Due Diligence Pitfalls in Commercial Lending and Other Business Transactions

Whether extending credit, acquiring a company, entering a joint venture, or onboarding a foreign supplier, organizations increasingly face risks that extend far beyond domestic due diligence standards. In cross-border transactions, incomplete or inaccurate information can lead to financial losses, regulatory exposure, reputational damage, and costly disputes.

For commercial lenders and other transaction professionals, understanding the unique challenges of international due diligence is critical to making informed decisions.

Assuming Corporate Records Tell the Whole Story

One of the most common mistakes in international transactions is relying solely on corporate registration documents. While a foreign entity may appear legitimate on paper, basic formation records often reveal little about financial stability, operational activity, litigation history, or ownership structure. In commercial lending, this can result in extending credit to entities with hidden liabilities, undisclosed affiliates, or questionable business practices that may only surface after funding has occurred.

Failing to Verify Beneficial Ownership

The borrower, acquisition target, or transaction counterparty is not always the party ultimately controlling the business. Complex corporate structures involving holding companies, trusts, nominee shareholders, and offshore entities can obscure beneficial ownership. Without identifying the individuals behind the organization, lenders and dealmakers may unknowingly expose themselves to sanctions risks, corruption concerns, politically exposed persons, or parties with problematic histories.

Missing Adverse Information on Key Principals

In all transactions, management quality is a key factor in assessing risk. Yet due diligence efforts frequently focus on the company while overlooking the backgrounds of directors, executives, major shareholders, and guarantors.

Previous fraud allegations, regulatory actions, bankruptcy histories, corruption investigations, or reputational issues involving key principals may significantly impact the creditworthiness or viability of a transaction. For lenders, the character and history of ownership can be just as important as the balance sheet.

Overlooking Local-Language Sources

Critical information is often unavailable in English. Litigation records, local news reports, regulatory enforcement actions, and negative media coverage frequently exist only in local-language sources. Organizations that limit their due diligence to English-language research may miss warning signs that local stakeholders are already aware of. A multilingual research strategy can often uncover risks that would otherwise remain hidden until after a transaction closes.

Underestimating Regulatory and Compliance Exposure

Cross-border transactions create exposure to a wide range of anti-corruption, anti-money laundering, sanctions, and anti-bribery regulations.

A borrower or business partner may appear financially sound while simultaneously presenting significant compliance risks. Relationships involving sanctioned jurisdictions, government-linked entities, or politically connected individuals require enhanced scrutiny to avoid regulatory consequences.

Financial institutions, in particular, face increasing expectations from regulators to demonstrate robust third-party due diligence processes.

Treating Due Diligence as a Closing Requirement

Many organizations view due diligence as a one-time exercise completed before loan approval or transaction closing. In reality, risk profiles can change quickly. Ownership changes, new sanctions designations, litigation developments, fraud allegations, or financial deterioration may occur months after a deal is completed. For higher-risk international relationships, ongoing monitoring is often just as important as the initial due diligence.

Protecting Against Cross-Border Risk

Successful international lending and business transactions require more than confirming that a company exists. Effective due diligence should examine ownership structures, key principals, litigation history, adverse media, sanctions exposure, regulatory concerns, and jurisdiction-specific risks.

In today’s global marketplace, the greatest threat is often not the risk that was identified—it is the risk that was never investigated. A comprehensive international due diligence strategy helps lenders and transaction professionals make more confident decisions, protect capital, and reduce exposure to unforeseen liabilities.

 

Disclaimer: This communication is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The summary provided in this alert does not, and cannot, cover in detail what employers need to know about the amendments to the Philadelphia Fair Chance Law or how to incorporate its requirements into their hiring process. No recipient should act or refrain from acting based on any information provided here without advice from a qualified attorney licensed in the applicable jurisdiction.

July 7th, 2026|Categories: Commercial Transactions Due Diligence|Tags: , |

The Psychology of Trust: How Background Checks Shape Employer Brand

Trust is the foundation of every successful workplace. Employees want to trust their leaders, customers want to buy from companies they believe in, and organizations must trust the people they hire. While background checks are traditionally viewed as a dry compliance requirement, they actually play a powerful psychological role in shaping your employer brand.

Moving Beyond Risk Mitigation

Background checks do far more than find red flags; they communicate an organization’s internal culture and standards. When candidates and current employees see consistent, job-relevant screening practices, it reinforces their confidence in the company’s integrity. By treating screening as a standard of quality rather than a bureaucratic hurdle, you subtly tell your workforce, and the public, that you care deeply about who represents your brand.

The Candidate Experience as a First Impression

The way a background check is conducted has a big psychological impact on an applicant. A rigorous process doesn’t have to be a negative one. When a company prioritizes clear communication, transparency, and respect for privacy, it builds early goodwill.

Candidates are highly perceptive. They trust employers who explain why information is being collected, how it will be used, and what rights they have. A respectful screening experience leaves a lasting positive impression, regardless of the final hiring outcome.

Cultivating Stakeholder Confidence

The psychological benefits of effective screening ripple across the entire business ecosystem:

  • Employees gain peace of mind knowing their peers have been properly vetted.
  • Customers feel more secure knowing they are interacting with trustworthy professionals.
  • Investors and regulators see a company that takes corporate governance and risk management seriously.

In a time where corporate reputation can be damaged in a single headline, proactive trust-building is a valuable business asset.

Trust as a Competitive Advantage

Organizations that successfully balance due diligence with fairness naturally become employers of choice. Ultimately, background checks are not just about verifying the past—they are about building confidence in the future. When conducted thoughtfully, they become a visible expression of an organization’s commitment to integrity, safety, and responsible growth.

 

Disclaimer: This communication is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The summary provided in this alert does not, and cannot, cover in detail what employers need to know about the amendments to the Philadelphia Fair Chance Law or how to incorporate its requirements into their hiring process. No recipient should act or refrain from acting based on any information provided here without advice from a qualified attorney licensed in the applicable jurisdiction.

July 2nd, 2026|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , |

Hidden Liability Gaps in Employment Screening Programs

Many organizations take comfort in knowing their background screening program is “compliant.” Policies are in place, disclosures are issued, and adverse action steps are followed. But in today’s regulatory environment, baseline compliance is not always sufficient to protect against real-world risk. In fact, some of the most significant liabilities arise not from outright noncompliance, but from misinterpretation, inconsistency, and overreliance on outdated assumptions.

The Illusion of Compliance

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), state and local laws, and EEOC guidance are often more nuanced than they appear. Organizations that rely on templated processes or static interpretations can unknowingly expose themselves to risk. Being technically compliant on paper does not always mean practices will withstand regulatory scrutiny, litigation, or evolving interpretations of fairness and equity.

Common Hidden Gaps

  • Misinterpreting the FCRA, state, and local law requirements
    FCRA and state and local law compliance is often reduced to a checklist: disclosure, authorization, applicable notices, pre-adverse action, and adverse action. However, issues frequently arise in the details, such as improperly formatted or combined disclosures, timing of criminal record checks, errors in adverse action workflows, and inconsistent application across candidate populations. Even small deviations can lead to class action exposure, particularly when applied at scale.
  • Overlooking EEOC nuances
    EEOC guidance emphasizes individualized assessment and the avoidance of policies that create disparate impact. Yet many organizations still rely on blanket disqualification criteria, rigid decision matrices, or insufficient documentation of hiring decisions. The risk isn’t just noncompliance–it’s the appearance of systemic bias, which can trigger investigations or claims.
  • Global inconsistencies
    For organizations operating internationally, screening programs often become fragmented. Differing privacy standards (GDPR and local data laws), varying permissible checks by country, and inconsistent vendor practices all contribute to risk. What is acceptable in one jurisdiction may be restricted or prohibited in another, creating exposure across borders.

Where Liability Emerges

The most significant risks tend to arise in areas such as:

  • Process inconsistency across roles, regions, or recruiters
  • Lack of documentation supporting decision-making
  • Vendor misalignment with internal compliance standards
  • Outdated policies that no longer reflect current enforcement priorities

Moving Beyond “Checkbox Compliance”

Defensibility comes from demonstrating that your program is consistent, well documented, and adaptable to evolving standards. A more holistic risk management strategy should include:

  • Regular review and updates of policies to reflect current guidance and case law
  • Audit of screening processes for consistency and documentation integrity
  • Training hiring teams on nuanced decision-making, not just procedures
  • Aligning with screening partners who understand both regulatory requirements and practical risk

 

Disclaimer: This communication is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The summary provided in this alert does not, and cannot, cover in detail what employers need to know about the amendments to the Philadelphia Fair Chance Law or how to incorporate its requirements into their hiring process. No recipient should act or refrain from acting based on any information provided here without advice from a qualified attorney licensed in the applicable jurisdiction.

June 11th, 2026|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , , , |

Background Screening Tradeoff: Turnaround Time vs. Quality

In today’s competitive hiring environment, speed is everything. Organizations are under constant pressure to move candidates through the hiring process quickly, and background screening is often expected to keep pace. But in the race to reduce turnaround time (TAT), an important question is often overlooked: what is the true cost of speed?

The Push for Faster Results

Delays can mean losing top candidates, disrupting business operations, or increasing costs. As a result, organizations frequently prioritize vendors and processes that promise rapid turnaround times–sometimes measured in hours instead of days. While faster screening can improve efficiency and candidate experience, it creates an inherent tension: comprehensive and defensible screening takes time.

Where Quality Can Suffer

Not all background checks are created equal. High-quality screening involves:

  • Obtaining and verifying data directly from primary sources
  • Expertly navigating complex court systems with varying levels of digitization
  • Resolving discrepancies through manual reviews
  • Ensuring compliance with applicable laws and regulations

When speed becomes the primary objective, there’s a risk that:

  • Searches rely too heavily on incomplete or aggregated databases
  • Critical verifications are skipped or downgraded
  • Errors or false positives increase
  • Nuanced findings are not fully investigated
  • Quality control is missing

Finding the Right Balance

The goal isn’t to choose between speed and quality—it’s to strike the right balance based on risk tolerance and role sensitivity. Organizations should consider:

  • Risk-based screening tiers: Higher scrutiny for high-impact roles, streamlined checks for lower-risk positions
  • Transparency in TAT expectations: Understanding what drives timelines rather than defaulting to the fastest option
  • Vendor partnerships: Working with providers who prioritize accuracy and compliance, not just speed
  • Process optimization: Leveraging technology where appropriate, while preserving necessary human oversight

 

Disclaimer: This communication is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The summary provided in this alert does not, and cannot, cover in detail what employers need to know about the amendments to the Philadelphia Fair Chance Law or how to incorporate its requirements into their hiring process. No recipient should act or refrain from acting based on any information provided here without advice from a qualified attorney licensed in the applicable jurisdiction.

June 1st, 2026|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , |

Why Civil Court Searches Are a Smart Hiring Advantage

In today’s complex hiring environment, civil record searches elevate screening from a routine step to a strategic safeguard for your business. In case of disputes or legal challenges related to hiring decisions, including civil court searches as part of the screening process shows that the employer conducted a reasonably thorough background check.

What Can Civil Records Reveal?

  • Workplace Safety
    A civil records search may disclose an applicant’s actual or potential for violence in cases that involve petitions for restraining orders regarding stalking, harassment, or domestic violence; whether the applicant is currently under a restraining order for any of the foregoing, or a complaint for assault, battery, property damage, or vandalism.
  • Workplace Conduct
    Civil records may disclose whether the applicant has engaged in antisocial, inappropriate workplace conduct or behavior contrary to public policy. For example, a civil records search may disclose complaints for workplace sexual harassment or discrimination, and whether such a case is pending, thereby leaving doubt in determining the applicant’s liability. There is also the issue of reputational risk to the employer for an applicant who was found liable in such cases.
  • Criminal-related Conduct
    Civil records may disclose whether an applicant has been sued by a former employer for financial claims such as embezzlement, theft, intentional property damage, or improperly using or disclosing an employer’s trade secrets. Although some of these claims can also be charged as crimes, a local prosecutor may decline to do so, and employers are left with only civil remedies.
  • Other Records
    The most common civil records are lawsuits for breach of contract, personal injury, small claims, or other minor disputes, as well as records of liens, foreclosures, and judgments. Whether any of these records provide relevant information for an employment decision can only be made on a case-by-case basis.

Building a Defensible Hiring Process

The purpose of a civil records check is to create a more complete profile. By identifying potential risks early, employers can:

  • Mitigate Risk: Help protect employees, customers, and organizational reputation.
  • Demonstrate Due Diligence: Show a reasonably thorough screening process if hiring decisions are later challenged.
  • Make Better Decisions: Evaluate findings in context, based on the specific role and responsibilities.

 

 

Disclaimer: This communication is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The summary provided in this alert does not, and cannot, cover in detail what employers need to know about the amendments to the Philadelphia Fair Chance Law or how to incorporate its requirements into their hiring process. No recipient should act or refrain from acting based on any information provided here without advice from a qualified attorney licensed in the applicable jurisdiction.

May 14th, 2026|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , |

A Stronger Lens on Risk: The Value of Independent Screening in Commercial Lending

Background checks on principals and guarantors are now a standard component of commercial lending due diligence. While some lenders rely primarily on internal searches, independent third‑party background screening provides meaningful advantages in risk management, consistency, depth, and defensibility that internal checks alone rarely achieve.

Independence and Objectivity

Third‑party screening delivers a neutral assessment, free from deal momentum or internal pressure. This independence strengthens the credibility of diligence findings and creates a defensible record, which is particularly important if a transaction is later reviewed by regulators, auditors, investors, or courts.

Consistency Across Deals

Internal background reviews can vary widely depending on team practices, geography, experience levels, and time constraints. Independent screening firms apply standardized methodologies across transactions, enabling more consistent treatment of borrowers and reducing the likelihood of uneven or incomplete evaluations.

Broader Information Access and Deeper Coverage

Specialized screening providers draw from a wide range of proprietary, licensed, and aggregated information sources, many of which are not readily accessible to internal teams. Combined with expertise in navigating fragmented public‑record systems, these capabilities allow them to more effectively identify name variations and locate litigation, regulatory actions, sanctions exposure, adverse media, and other potentially deal-stopping information that may otherwise go undetected.

Reduced Legal and Compliance Risk

Reputable  third‑party providers operate within established compliance frameworks, apply appropriate guardrails, and maintain clear documentation, helping lenders reduce the risk of inadvertent legal or regulatory missteps.

Efficiency and Governance

Outsourcing background screening allows internal teams to focus on credit analysis, judgment, and transaction decision‑making, while producing a clear audit trail that supports governance, examiner expectations, and investor oversight.

The Bottom Line

Internal familiarity can introduce blind spots, and internal searches are inherently constrained by available tools and sources. Third‑party screeners do not replace internal judgment–they complement it by bringing independence, broader access, and disciplined methodologies that strengthen both risk assessment and defensibility.

 

Disclaimer: This communication is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The summary provided in this alert does not, and cannot, cover in detail what employers need to know about the amendments to the Philadelphia Fair Chance Law or how to incorporate its requirements into their hiring process. No recipient should act or refrain from acting based on any information provided here without advice from a qualified attorney licensed in the applicable jurisdiction.

May 1st, 2026|Categories: Commercial Transactions Due Diligence|Tags: , |

AI in Client Acceptance and Continuance (A&C): What the PCAOB Thinks

Artificial intelligence is actively reshaping research, planning, and risk assessment. For audit quality and compliance leaders, the most pressing question is how to use AI in A&C without triggering inspection risks.

The PCAOB’s Stance: AI Is an Assistive Tool, Not an Auditor

The PCAOB does not prohibit the use of AI, but it is clear on one point: technology is not a replacement for professional judgment. There is no “AI exception” to professional responsibility.

In its July 2024 Spotlight, PCAOB staff observed that while firms are investing heavily in generative AI, the most effective implementations focus on administrative and research tasks, with human partners retaining responsibility for final conclusions. Because A&C sits at the intersection of independence, ethics, and firm risk, it remains a high‑judgment area subject to heightened inspection scrutiny.

Bridging the Gap with Qualified Third Parties

Many firms bridge the gap between AI-driven efficiency and human expertise by engaging qualified third parties to perform A&C due diligence. However, delegating the task does not delegate the responsibility.

  • Supervision Standards (AS 1201):
    Lead auditors must supervise auditor‑engaged specialists. Firms cannot simply file a third‑party report; they must evaluate the specialist’s methods and assess the sufficiency and appropriateness of the evidence obtained.
  • The QC 1000 Factor:
    The PCAOB’s new Quality Control standard (QC 1000), effective December 15, 2026, places greater emphasis on managing “external resources.” Firms must implement robust controls to ensure that third‑party providers and any AI tools they use meet the firm’s standards for competence, objectivity, and reliability.

Navigating Inspection Risks

When it comes to PCAOB inspections, how AI is used in A&C matters just as much as whether it is used at all. Here are the red-flags:

  • Allowing AI tools to automatically determine “accept” or “decline” decisions
  • Relying on AI outputs that are not explainable or cannot be defended
  • Treating third‑party reports as final without a meaningful review
  • Succumbing to automation bias by blindly trusting a software-generated score

The Documentation Mandate

From a PCAOB inspector’s perspective, “the system recommended it” is not a defensible rationale. Documentation must be audit‑ready and clearly demonstrate:

  1. The Role of AI:
    Whether AI was used for research, drafting, data analysis, or other support functions.
  2. The Inputs:
    The data, sources, and prompts provided to the AI tool or third party.
  3. The Challenge:
    How the engagement team evaluated, corroborated, or challenged the AI or third‑party output.
  4. Professional Skepticism:
    Evidence that a human partner applied judgment and took responsibility for the final A&C decision.

 

Disclaimer: This communication is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The summary provided in this alert does not, and cannot, cover in detail what employers need to know about the amendments to the Philadelphia Fair Chance Law or how to incorporate its requirements into their hiring process. No recipient should act or refrain from acting based on any information provided here without advice from a qualified attorney licensed in the applicable jurisdiction.

April 23rd, 2026|Categories: Commercial Transactions Due Diligence|Tags: , |

In‑House Background Screening: A Closer Look at the Tradeoffs

There is no law or regulation that prohibits employers from conducting their own background screening. In fact, many organizations, especially smaller companies or those hiring infrequently, assume that doing it themselves will be faster, cheaper, or more flexible. But while in‑house screening is legally permitted, it comes with both benefits and meaningful tradeoffs that employers should understand before choosing that path.

The Pros

One advantage of employer‑led screening is control. Employers can decide exactly what to look for, how deep to go, and how the information is weighed in hiring decisions.

Cost is another perceived benefit. By avoiding third‑party screening vendors, employers may reduce direct expenses, at least on the surface. For organizations with limited hiring volume, internal screening can seem economically efficient.

Finally, some employers value the speed and informality of conducting their own research, especially when reviewing publicly available information or calling references directly. When done carefully, this can support timely decision‑making.

The Cons

The biggest downside is increased legal and compliance risk. While laws like the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) primarily apply when third‑party screening companies are used, employers conducting their own checks are still subject to anti‑discrimination laws, state and local fair‑chance rules, privacy considerations, and consistency requirements. Without structured processes, it’s easy for internal screening to become uneven, undocumented, or vulnerable to unconscious bias.

Accuracy is another concern. Public records are often incomplete, outdated, or misleading when viewed without proper context. Employers relying on surface‑level searches may unintentionally base decisions on incorrect or mismatched information, creating both legal exposure and reputational harm.

There’s also the issue of internal capacity and expertise. Effective background screening isn’t just about finding information; it’s about interpreting it. Understanding how to assess relevance, and apply findings consistently requires experience. Many employers underestimate the level of expertise required.

Finally, in‑house screening can blur accountability. When adverse decisions are challenged, employers must be able to show how information was obtained, evaluated, and applied fairly. Without third‑party documentation or standardized workflows, that defense becomes harder.

The Bottom Line

Employers can conduct their own employment background screening, but permission does not equal protection. Whether screening is handled internally or with external support, the process must be lawful, consistent, accurate, and grounded in sound judgment. Cutting corners on screening may save time upfront but it often costs more later.

 

Disclaimer: This communication is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The summary provided in this alert does not, and cannot, cover in detail what employers need to know about the amendments to the Philadelphia Fair Chance Law or how to incorporate its requirements into their hiring process. No recipient should act or refrain from acting based on any information provided here without advice from a qualified attorney licensed in the applicable jurisdiction.

April 21st, 2026|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , |

California AB 2095: Refining the “Fair Chance” Process

California’s hiring landscape is known for its complexity, and Assembly Bill 2095 (AB 2095) looks to add another layer of precision. As a proposed update to the state’s existing Fair Chance Act, this bill aims to tighten the “ban-the-box” rules, ensuring that criminal history is only considered when it is directly relevant to the position. 

What AB 2095 Would Change

While current laws already restrict when employers can ask about criminal history, AB 2095 focuses on the how. The goal is to eliminate indirect pressure on applicants to disclose their past before a formal assessment is made.

Under the bill, covered employers would be prohibited from:

  • Requesting consent for a conviction history background check before providing applicants with a written description of the specific job duties for which a conviction could be disqualifying.
  • Initiating a conviction history check before that job‑duty information is provided.
  • Requiring applicants to pay for any conviction history background check.
  • Requiring applicants, before or after a conditional offer, to disclose convictions or provide documentation related to convictions or rehabilitation.

Compliance Steps

If passed, AB 2095 would require employers to be more deliberate and transparent before any criminal history screening occurs. This includes:

  • Updating offer letters, disclosures, and authorization forms to ensure proper sequencing and content;
  • Confirming that job‑specific risk and duty information is clearly documented and provided to applicants before requesting screening consent; and
  • Coordinating closely with background screening vendors, particularly where vendors host or manage employer forms.

Failure to align hiring practices with AB 2095 requirements could increase exposure to discrimination claims under California’s civil rights laws.

 

Disclaimer: This communication is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The summary provided in this alert does not, and cannot, cover in detail what employers need to know about the amendments to the Philadelphia Fair Chance Law or how to incorporate its requirements into their hiring process. No recipient should act or refrain from acting based on any information provided here without advice from a qualified attorney licensed in the applicable jurisdiction.

April 14th, 2026|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , , , |

Does the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) Apply to Background Checks of Law Firm Partners?

It depends on who you ask. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has long taken the position that the FCRA should be interpreted broadly, and in its guidance, treats “employment purpose” as covering not only traditional employees, but also non‑traditional workers such as independent contractors, freelancers, temporary workers, and volunteers. However, in recent years, a few federal district courts have issued opinions that don’t align with the FTC’s guidance and instead use a strict common-law definition of the employer-employee relationship.

Because there’s no clear answer and the FCRA does not account for modern law firm partnership tiers, a hybrid compliance approach may be the best practice for avoiding FCRA liability.

Background Checks are Consumer Reports When Used for an Employment Purpose

The FCRA regulates information contained in consumer reports in order to protect the consumer’s privacy, promote fairness, and to guarantee the data reported is as accurate as possible. When a background check is used for employment purposes, it is considered a consumer report, and the requirements of the FCRA apply, including disclosure, authorization, and adverse action, as well as applicable state and local laws and regulations.

The FCRA defines the term “employment purposes” as evaluating a consumer for “employment, promotion, reassignment or retention as an employee.” It is important to note that the FTC interprets the ending phrase “as an employee” in the definition of “employment purposes” as modifying only “retention,” and not the words “employment, promotion, reassignment” preceding it.

Equity v. Non-Equity Partners and the FCRA

Equity partners typically share profits and losses, contribute capital, and participate in governance. Non‑equity partners, by contrast, often receive fixed compensation, do not bear profit‑and‑loss risk, and remain subject to the firm’s control. In practice, non‑equity partners frequently resemble senior employees. Distinctions can also be made between candidates for partner who are recruited from outside the firm and associates being evaluated for promotion to partner.

Law firms should consider a hybrid compliance model that establishes separate screening policies for partner candidates recruited from outside the firm, for existing equity partners, and for candidates with an existing employment relationship with the firm, such as associates or non-equity partners. Background checks for associates and non‑equity partners should generally be treated as subject to the FCRA’s employment‑purpose requirements.

For outside partner candidates and equity partners, firms may instead rely on a non‑employment permissible purpose under the FCRA: “the written instructions of the consumer.”

Key Takeaways

  • Titles do not control—structure and control do
  • Default to FCRA employment purpose compliance for non‑equity partners
  • Apply FCRA employment purpose rules to internal promotions
  • Ensure screening vendors and internal teams align on the permissible purpose

 

Disclaimer: This communication is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The summary provided in this alert does not, and cannot, cover in detail what employers need to know about the amendments to the Philadelphia Fair Chance Law or how to incorporate its requirements into their hiring process. No recipient should act or refrain from acting based on any information provided here without advice from a qualified attorney licensed in the applicable jurisdiction.

April 13th, 2026|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , , |
© 2012- SCHERZER INTERNATIONAL | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Go to Top