Mike Scherzer

About Mike Scherzer

This author has not yet filled in any details.
So far Mike Scherzer has created 400 blog entries.

Medical marijuana laws put employers in a tough spot

The growing number of jurisdictions permitting medical marijuana is putting employers in a tough position. One the one hand, marijuana remains illegal under federal law and a workforce under the influence isn’t much of a workforce at all. On the other hand, 23 states and the District of Columbia now permit the use of marijuana for regulated medical purposes and some state laws include anti-discrimination provisions prohibiting employers from taking action against employees based on their status as a registered medical marijuana user.

A first-of-its-kind lawsuit demonstrates the conundrum. In December, the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit in a Rhode Island state court on behalf of an individual who allegedly was denied an internship after she disclosed that she lawfully carried a medical marijuana card for severe migraines.

According to the complaint, the company told the applicant that she had been rejected because of her status as a cardholder, and despite promises not to bring medical marijuana on the premises or come to work under the influence, the applicant was denied the position.

The lawsuit charges that the company violated Rhode Island’s medical marijuana law which prohibits schools, employers, and landlords from refusing “to enroll, employ, or lease to, or otherwise penalize, a person solely for his or her status as a cardholder.” The complaint – which also includes allegations of disability discrimination under state law – seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

Employers in states permitting medical marijuana would be well-advised to review their relevant law when considering marijuana use or marijuana-related criminal records in employment decisions. While Rhode Island is not alone in including an anti-discrimination requirement in its law, joined by Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, and New York, other states – including California, Massachusetts, and New York – are clear that employers have no obligation to accommodate an employee’s medical marijuana use or permit them to work under the influence.

Read the complaint.

January 29th, 2015|Employment Decisions|

OFAC getting more common in contract terms and background checks

Do you know what OFAC is about? OFAC is the acronym of the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, and its function is to administer and enforce sanctions against countries or individuals (like terrorists or narcotics traffickers) with actions ranging from trade restrictions to the blocking of assets.

For U.S. companies, the agency’s enforcement applies to banks, insurers, and others in the financial industry that may be involved in covered dealings, which include engaging in transactions prohibited by Congress such as trade with an embargoed country or with a specially designated national (SDN).

Violations of regulations, which extend to all U.S. citizens, can result in substantial fines and penalties. Criminal penalties can reach up to $20 million and imprisonment up to 30 years; civil fees can range from up to $65,000 to $1,075,000 per violation, depending on the activity at issue.

OFAC has significantly stepped up its enforcement efforts that have resulted in sizable settlement agreements with U.S. entities, and thus companies increasingly are incorporating sanctions compliance language based on OFAC regulations into contracts and agreements, as well as including OFAC checks in their employment-purpose background screening or in connection with business transaction due diligence.

Contract terms requiring a party to affirm that it is not the subject of any OFAC sanctions status, that no OFAC investigations are in process, or that it does not engage in transactions with countries like Iran or North Korea, are becoming standard. Some deals also include a provision attesting that a company is not owned by an individual on the list of SDNs, that the company is not based or located in an embargoed country, or to assure that the monies used to make an investment or purchase were not provided by a sanctioned country or individual. Of course, it is also important to conduct background checks to confirm these representations at the start of the contract and at reasonable intervals thereafter.

The use of compliance language does not insulate a company from OFAC liability. While such a provision may create a contract-based remedy to recover monetary damages based on a fine or settlement with the agency, the clause cannot eliminate liability. Like any other governmental regulator, OFAC is not bound by private contract and can take action even with such terms in place.

Learn more about OFAC.

January 29th, 2015|Educational Series|

Class action charges LinkedIn with violations of FCRA

According to a new putative class action filed in California federal court, social networking site LinkedIn runs afoul of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

The plaintiffs claim that LinkedIn’s reference search functionality allows prospective employers, among others, to obtain reports on job applicants with profiles on the site. LinkedIn’s dissemination of “Reference Reports” – that are created based on a user’s profile and connections to form a list of former supervisors and co-workers as possible references – are available for users who pay a monthly or annual subscription fee.

“LinkedIn has created a marketplace in consumer employment information, where it sells employment information, that may or may not be accurate, and that is has obtained in part from unwitting members, and without complying with the FCRA,” according to the complaint, which noted the site has more than 300 million members and one million jobs listed.

The Reference Reports bring LinkedIn within the purview of the FCRA, and yet the company fails to comply with a host of statutory requirements, according to the complaint.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the site violates Section 1581(b) by furnishing consumer reports for employment purposes without obtaining the certifications required by the statute or a summary of the consumer’s rights and also does not maintain any of the procedures required by Section 1681e(a) to limit the furnishing of consumer reports to the limited purposes of the statute. In addition, Section 1681e(b) mandates that all consumer reporting agencies follow reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of consumer report information, Section 1681e(d) requires that a user notice be provided to individuals when a report is provided about them, and Section 1681b states that reports can only be provided after an inquiry to ensure the report is used for a “permissible purpose.” None of these statutory requirements were met by LinkedIn, the suit alleges.

“[A]ny potential employer can anonymously dig into the employment history of any LinkedIn member, and make hiring and firing decisions based upon the information they gather, without the knowledge of the member, and without any safeguards in place as to the accuracy of the information that the potential employer has obtained,” Sweet and the other plaintiffs claim. “Such secrecy in dealing in consumer information directly contradicts the express purposes of the FCRA.”

The main plaintiff alleges that she located a job opening on the site and submitted her resume through LinkedIn. She received a notification from the site that the general manager of the employer had viewed her profile and she was offered the job after an interview. The general manager declined the plaintiff’s offer to provide a list of references but later called back to rescind the offer, telling her that he had checked some of her references and changed his mind.

The plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class of LinkedIn users who had a Reference Report run on them as well as a subclass of users who applied for employment via the site and had a Report generated by a potential employer. As for remedies, the putative class requests actual, statutory, and punitive damages, as well as attorney’s fees and costs.

To read the complaint in Sweet v. LinkedIn Corporation, click here.

December 3rd, 2014|Employment Decisions, Lawsuit|

SEC considers background check rule proposed by FINRA

Financial institutions could face expanded obligations to conduct background screening of applicants for registration pursuant to a rule proposed by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

As currently drafted, the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) Rule 3010(e), the Responsibility of Member to Investigate Applicants for Registration, provides that a firm “must ascertain by investigation the good character, business reputation, qualifications and experience of an applicant before the firm applies to register that applicant with FINRA,” the regulator explained.

Seeking to “streamline and clarify members’ obligations relating to background investigation, which will, in turn, improve members’ compliance efforts,” FINRA proposed the addition of background checks to the Rule for the SEC’s consideration.

The change would mandate that firms verify the accuracy and completeness of the information in an applicant’s Form U4 (Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer) for first-time applicants as well as transfers. Written procedures for conducting the background check – including a public records search – must also be established.

While the rule is prospective, FINRA announced that it would take a look at currently registered representatives. The financial regulator intends to begin its efforts with a search of all publicly available criminal records for the roughly 630,000 registered individuals who have not been fingerprinted within the last five years; going forward, FINRA will periodically review public records “to ascertain the accuracy and completeness of the information available to investors, regulators and firms,” the agency said.

To read the Federal Register notice: click here.

December 3rd, 2014|Fraud, Risk Management|

Background screening of independent contractors

The issue of worker misclassification is a hot topic for employers, with state and federal authorities as well as class action suits challenging whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. But what about the differences in background screening for independent contractors? Are they subject to the same disclosure and authorization requirements, adverse action notices, and dispute rights that apply to employees?

The answer: it depends.

While the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) doesn’t directly address independent contractors, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has issued two advisory opinions stating that they should be afforded the same rights as employees. The FTC also reiterated this view in its staff report published in July 2011, stating that the FCRA’s broad definition of the term “employment purposes” extends beyond traditional employment relationships. (FTC Staff Report at 32.)

The Allison Letter (a response to an inquiry from a Georgia worker named Herman L. Allison) addressed the issue in the context of a trucking company that hired drivers who owned and operated their own equipment. Characterizing the situation as a “business relationship” and not an “employment relationship,” Allison asked whether the protections of the FCRA still applied.

Taking a broad interpretation of the term “employment,” the FTC said that treating independent contractors differently than employees would hamper the goals of the FCRA. Even a homeowner who conducts a background check on a handyman or other worker hired as an independent contractor should follow the FCRA requirements, the agency wrote.

In a second letter, the FTC considered a query from Harris K. Solomon, an attorney in Florida. A client wished to conduct background checks on individuals selling its insurance products and handling title exams. Again, the agency said the checks would trigger the requirements of the FCRA.

The FTC’s advisory letters – both issued in 1998 – as well as the staff report, are advisory and non-binding on other parties. But they provide insight into how federal authorities would address the rights and protections owed to an independent contractor as the subject of a background check.

However, on the other end of the spectrum, a Wisconsin federal court judge in 2012 held that the disclosure obligations of the FCRA do not apply to independent contractor relationships. The case involved a sales rep who sued EMS Energy Marketing Service after he was terminated. The plaintiff claimed that the company failed to provide him with either the written notice of his rights or a copy of the report as required by the statute. But the court granted summary judgment for the employer, ruling that Lamson was hired as an independent contractor, not an employee, and therefore, the FCRA did not apply. The language of the statute refers only to employees and if a worker is not an employee “it necessarily follows that he or she is not covered by the FCRA,” the court wrote in Lamson v. EMS Energy Marketing Service. The court also distinguished the FTC letters as advisory opinions, adding that the “letters, in and of themselves, are of limited, if any, persuasive power.”

To read the Allison Letter, click here.

To read the Solomon Letter, click here.

December 3rd, 2014|Employment Decisions|

California expands privacy protections for state residents

A perennial trendsetter with regard to data security and privacy, California has updated its state law with tweaks that expand the scope of the privacy protections for state residents.

A.B. 1710 made three changes to existing law that go into effect January 1, 2015: first, businesses that maintain “personal information” about California residents must “implement and maintain appropriate and reasonable security procedures and practices” to protect the data from “unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure.” Personal information is defined to include an individual’s first name or first initial and last name, Social Security number, driver’s license number, as well as medical and financial account information.

Second, if a person or business was “the source” of a data breach and offers to provide identity theft prevention and mitigation services to affected individuals, the business must offer the services at no cost for at least 12 months. Some controversy has swirled around this provision, with debate on whether the language actually requires businesses to provide one year of free identity theft protection and mitigation services or if the law simply requires that if the services are offered, they last for 12 months and are provided gratis. Additional guidance may be forthcoming.

Finally, the new legislation prohibits a business from “selling, offering for sale, or advertising for sale” Social Security numbers. Limited exceptions were noted in the bill, including “if the release

[not necessarily a sale] of the Social Security number is incidental to a larger transaction and is necessary to identify the individual in order to accomplish a legitimate business purpose” or “for a purpose specifically authorized or specifically allowed by federal or state law.”

The law’s scope reaches well beyond the borders of California, as it applies to businesses that maintain any personal information about a state resident. Companies would be well advised to familiarize themselves with the new requirements.

To read AB 1710, click here.

December 3rd, 2014|Legislation, Privacy|

Decisions in two cases to set precedence for auditors’ fraud liability

It all started in 1905 with the lawsuit Smith v. London Assurance Corporation whereby an auditor was held liable for failing to audit its client’s branch office and detecting embezzlement.

Now more than 100 years later, the legal liability of auditors in detecting corporate fraud  will be decided in two cases that were heard on Tuesday, September 14, 2010, in the New York Court of Appeals, potentially increasing the Big Four accountants’ exposure to multibillion-dollar shareholder lawsuits for malpractice. In both cases, the court will rule whether auditors can rely on the legal doctrine of in pari delicto (“in equal fault”) to reject claims for fraud allegedly committed by company insiders. The doctrine prevents someone from recovering damages from a defendant if that someone is also at fault. The argument is whether the shareholders, as owners of the company, can be held at fault for frauds committed within the company and barred from suing its auditors for not discovering the wrongdoing.

The first lawsuit facing scrutiny was filed by the shareholders of AIG against PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), the insurer’s auditor. The shareholders claim that PwC failed in its job as auditors in the early 2000s, when various AIG officers and directors, including ex-CEO Maurice Greenberg, allegedly engaged in fraudulent transactions to pad AIG’s bottom line. Authorities subsequently caught the fraud, and AIG had to restate years of financial statements that “eventually reduced stockholder equity by $3.5 billion.” AIG ended up paying more than $1.5 billion in fines, and the shareholders say that since PwC missed the fraud, they should be allowed to sue PwC for malpractice. The Chancery Court in Delaware dismissed their request to sue PwC, and the case was appealed in Delaware’s Supreme Court. That court asked the New York’s Court of Appeals to decide whether the shareholders have a claim under New York law.

The second case relates to protracted litigation by the bankruptcy trustee of Refco Inc., the failed futures broker, seeking damages from a number of the firm’s professional advisers, and auditors including Grant Thornton, KPMG LLP, Ernst & Young LLP, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Mayer Brown, LLP, et al. The trustee alleges that Refco’s outside counsel Mayer Brown, and several other insiders are liable for defrauding Refco’s creditors by helping the defunct company conceal hundreds of millions of dollars in uncollectible debt. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that the trustee’s argument to revive claims against the corporate insiders raised unresolved questions concerning his standing under New York law to sue third-parties for Refco’s fraud.

September 17th, 2010|Fraud, Judgment|

Your Risk Management Partner … Because Integrity Matters

The past few months have witnessed appalling stories of con artists who bilked billions of dollars out of people, business, and charitable foundations. These white collar thieves were not just in banking and on Wall Street; they were in health care, retail, oil and refining, military supplies and other fields. In short, the effects of these cons have been felt on every street in America and beyond.

    Do these stories indicate that business crime has increased in recent years, or are we simply more effective in catching the perpetrators? Perhaps it is a combination of both, but these cases point to the importance of internal controls through due diligence and risk management.

    Scherzer International (SI) has a proven reputation for accuracy, expertise, quality and speed in risk management. As part of a Risk Management Program we provide background reports with search strategies designed for each client’s risk level. Our highly trained research analysts review and summarize public records for both individuals and companies and deliver a comprehensive, easy-to-read report targeted on the client’s purpose of investigation.

    SI’s trusted reputation was proven once again recently in two highly publicized cases involving fraud, money laundering and drug related crimes. Years before news broke on the cases; SI identified these individuals as a potential risk for two of our clients. Based on our reports, our clients (one a financial services firm and one an accounting firm) made the informed decision not to engage in business with these individuals. In one case, the subject of our investigation was arrested and convicted of drug related crimes, money laundering and involvement in organized crime. In the other case, the federal government charged the subject with illegal financial dealings, investments that could not be traced and altering financial records.

    It is difficult to quantify just how much SI’s background report saved these companies in what could have been very costly and damaging decisions. What we can say is that our clients feel confident that we are an integral part of their Risk Management Program.

    Your Risk Management Partner … Because Integrity Matters

    June 25th, 2009|Partnership|

    Members of the Financial Community

    Members of the Financial Community
    FM: Larry Scherzer, President, Scherzer International
    RE: Background Investigations in the Current Economic Environment

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    As a part of its Risk Management Program, one of our financial services clients asked us to conduct a Prospective Client Background Investigation. This is a well-accepted best practice for protecting the firm’s reputation and minimizing legal liabilities.

    SI’s investigation in 2006 revealed that the subject company and its principal were involved in dubious business practices. As you may have guessed, based on this initial discovery, our client declined the engagement.

    Recent headlines have now verified, years after our investigation, that the prospective client had, in fact, been running what can best be described as a long-standing Ponzi scheme.

    This experience demonstrates the benefits of obtaining background investigations that provide comprehensively researched and analyzed information as a key element in your Risk Management Program.

    Please visit www.scherzer.com or telephone 800-SC-FACTS to find out more about managing business risk for pennies on the dollar… because we never take integrity for granted

    Sincerely,

    Larry S. Scherzer

    April 17th, 2009|Risk Management|
    © 2012- SCHERZER INTERNATIONAL | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
    Go to Top