ORDER A REPORT
SECURE FILE UPLOAD

Compliance Corder covers articles related to employment decisions due diligence.

Congress proposes bill that protects regulated employers’ background checks

While the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”) is continuing its challenge of employers’ use of criminal history and credit report information in personnel decisions, and new “ban-the-box” laws are rapidly gaining momentum, on September 9, 2014, Congress proposed legislation that protects certain regulated employers from EEOC, state agency and private actions when they strive to comply with the screening laws that are particular to their industries. The Certainty in Enforcement Act of 2014 would amend Section 703 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-2), and cover employers that include those engaged in “health care, childcare, in-home services, policing, security, education, finance, employee benefits, and fiduciary duties.”

October 15th, 2014|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , , |

Class action for unauthorized disclosure of PHI is a new twist under FCRA

A recent class-action is seeking damages for the unauthorized disclosure of personal health information (“PHI”) under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (the “FCRA”). The plaintiffs claim that the defendant hospital allowed the unauthorized access of confidential records of the putative class members, including PHI, held by a third-party records vendor without their knowledge or consent and without sufficient security. Among other claims, the plaintiffs allege that the hospital violated the FCRA by failing to implement adequate safeguards to protect their personally identifiable information and PHI from a data breach suffered by the third-party vendors. The plaintiffs argue that the hospital was a CRA that created “consumer reports” containing sensitive information including names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, billing information and confidential health records, and disseminated this information to medical service providers affiliated with the defendant, and that the defendant allowed employees of the vendor and others to gain unrestricted access to their personally identifiable information and PHI, which was allegedly misused and intentionally disclosed to third-parties for profit.

September 19th, 2014|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , |

District of Columbia joins ban-the-box movement

On August 22, 2014, District of Columbia’s mayor signed new legislation titled the Fair Criminal Record Screening Amendment Act of 2014 that prohibits most employers in DC from both inquiring about criminal history information during the application process and obtaining a criminal background check until after a conditional offer of employment is made to the applicant. The law, which imposes a host of other restrictions and requirements on using criminal record information for personnel decisions, will take effect following a 30-day period of Congressional review as provided in the District of Columbia Home Rule Act and publication in the District of Columbia Register.

September 19th, 2014|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , , |

New Jersey’s new ban-the-box law goes into effect March 1, 2015

Signed into law last month, The Opportunity to Compete Act will effect March 1, 2015, preventing many private employers in New Jersey from asking job candidates about their criminal history on the initial job application. In “banning the box” for private employers, New Jersey joins the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and cities of Philadelphia (PA), Newark (NJ), Buffalo (NY), Seattle (WA), San Francisco (CA), Baltimore (MD), and Rochester (NY)) in postponing inquiries about criminal record information until later in the hiring process, and imposing other requirements on the use of such records in employment decisions.

September 19th, 2014|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , , , |

Reminder: San Francisco’s tough ordinance that restricts asking about and using criminal records in employment and housing decisions starts August 13, 2014

 

Effective August 13, 2014, the Fair Chance Ordinance (the “FCO”) (see also the FCO FAQs) requires covered employers, contractors, and housing providers to review an individual’s qualifications before inquiring about his/her criminal history and follow strict rules for using the information.

The FCO applies to private employers that are located or doing business in the city and county of San Francisco, and employ 20 or more persons worldwide. This 20-person threshold includes owner(s), management, and supervisory personnel. The FCO covers positions (including contractor and other status) located within San Francisco, regardless of where the employer is located, as long as the position is “in whole, or in substantial part, within the city.” San Francisco’s Office of Labor Standards Enforcement (the “OLSE”) interprets “in substantial part” to mean an average of eight hours of work performed per week in San Francisco.

Along with banning inquiries about a criminal history or pending charges on the job application or during the first live interview, the FCO prohibits asking about six categories of criminal record information altogether, and mandates significant measures for individualized assessment, including considering only “directly-related convictions that have a direct and specific negative bearing on the

[applicant’s] ability to perform the duties or responsibilities necessarily related to the position,” the time elapsed since the conviction, evidence of inaccuracy, evidence of rehabilitation and/or other mitigating factors.

An aspect of the ordinance that is especially noteworthy is that employers are prohibited from inquiring about or considering convictions that are more than seven years old, with “the date of conviction being the date of sentencing.” Under California law, there already is a seven-year limitation on such records, but the look-back period starts from the date that a person is released from custody. Also of note is that before taking any adverse action based on a criminal record, the ordinance requires that the employer wait seven days (from the date of the potential adverse action notice) before taking such action. If during the seven-day waiting period the individual gives the employer notice, orally or in writing, of evidence of an inaccuracy, rehabilitation, or any other mitigating factor, the employer must delay the adverse action for a “reasonable” time to reconsider the action.

Employers must also ensure that criminal background inquiries later in the process comply with the notice guidelines published by the OLSE, as well as with the already existing background check disclosure/authorization requirements under California’s ICRAA and the FCRA. Highlighted below are the ordinance’s more significant notice requirements:

  • Covered employers must post, in a conspicuous place at every workplace, including a temporary site, or other location in San Francisco under the employer’s control where applicants or employees visit, a notice of rights provided by the OLSE. The notice must be posted in English, Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog and any other language spoken by 5% or more of the employees in the workplace, job site, or other location. (Translations of the notice in Chinese, Spanish, and Tagalog are available on the OLSE website.)
  • Employers must state in all job solicitations or advertisements that are reasonably likely to reach potential applicants seeking employment in San Francisco that the employer will consider qualified individuals with a criminal history.
  • Employers mustsendthe notice toeachlaborunionorrepresentative withwhomtheemployerhasacollectivebargainingagreementorotheragreementthatisapplicabletoemployeesinSanFrancisco.
  • Prior to any criminal history inquiry, including from procuring or conducting a background check, an employer must provide this notice to an applicant or employee when he/she is given the required FCRA/ICRAA disclosure and authorization form to sign.

August 8th, 2014|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , , |

Class-action against U.S. Census Bureau alleges race-bias in using criminal background checks

On July 1, 2014, a magistrate judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York certified as a class-action an unprecedented lawsuit brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that alleges the U.S. Census Bureau’s process of using criminal background checks when selecting temporary workers for the 2010 census unlawfully screened out approximately 250,000 African-Americans. Filed in April 2010, the complaint charges that in hiring nearly a million temporary workers, most of whom went door-to-door seeking information from residents, the Bureau erected unreasonable and largely insurmountable hurdles for applicants with arrest records, regardless of whether the arrests were decades old, were for minor charges, or led to criminal convictions.

July 9th, 2014|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , |

Cities of Rochester, NY and Baltimore, MD join fast growing list of ban-the-box jurisdictions

Effective November 18, 2014, the City of Rochester, New York ordinance no. 2014-0155 will prohibit employers from requiring applicants to disclose any criminal conviction information during the application process. The employer may inquire about a criminal conviction only after the initial interview. And if the employer does not conduct an interview, it must inform the applicant whether a criminal background check will be performed, before employment is to begin. Additionally, it must wait until after a conditional job offer has been extended before conducting the criminal check or otherwise inquiring into the applicant’s criminal history. The ordinance applies to any position where the primary place of work is located within Rochester, and to any city employees (except fire or police) or vendors regardless of location. Excluded from the ordinance are criminal record inquiries that are authorized by another applicable law.

Baltimore’s Fair Criminal-Record Screening Practices ordinance, which becomes effective August 13, 2014, similarly bans private employers from inquiring about or conducting criminal checks on applicants until a conditional offer has been extended. The ordinance applies to any employer with 10 or more employees within the city of Baltimore, but excludes entities serving minors or vulnerable adults. Unlike some other ban-the-box laws, the Baltimore ordinance does not require that employers provide additional notices to applicants other than those required under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

For more information on ban-the-box legislation,see the recently published briefing paper by the National Employment Law Project titled Statewide Ban the Box–Reducing Unfair Barriers to Employment of People with Criminal Records.

July 9th, 2014|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , , , , |

Sixth Circuit affirms dismissal of EEOC’s suit regarding employment credit checks

Last month, the 6th Circuit affirmed a lower court order granting summary judgment in favor of educational institution Kaplan  (6th Cir. April. 9, 2014;  No. 13-3408:   EEOC v. Kaplan Higher Education Corp.) where the EEOC charged that Kaplan’s use of credit checks causes it to screen out more African-American applicants than white, creating a disparate impact in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In granting summary judgment to Kaplan, the district court stated that “proof of disparate impact is usually statistical proof in the form of expert testimony, and here the EEOC relied solely on statistical data compiled by Kevin Murphy, a PhD in industrial and organizational psychology.” The court excluded Murphy’s testimony on grounds that it was unreliable, as the EEOC presented “no evidence” that Murphy’s methodology satisfied any of the factors that courts typically consider in determining reliability under Federal Rule of Evidence 702; and, as Murphy himself admitted, his sample was not representative of Kaplan’s applicant pool as a whole. The EEOC argued that the district court “erred” when it excluded Murphy’s testimony.

This case was decided on narrow grounds, based on its particular facts and circumstances. Accordingly, employers still should review their screening policies to ensure that credit and (criminal history) checks are consistent with Title VII as interpreted by the EEOC. Additionally, ten states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington) and several municipalities already have legislation that limits the use of credit reports for employment purposes

May 14th, 2014|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , |

Reminder that EEOC’s guide on criminal checks extends to contractors and subcontractors

The guidance issued in 2012 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) on using criminal checks in employment decisions was also incorporated into the directive of Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (the “OFCCP”). As provided in the EEOC guidance, the OFCCP discourages the use of blanket hiring exclusions against individuals with criminal records, and recommends that contractors follow the EEOC’s best practices for employers to avoid liability for discrimination. The OFCCP advises that contractors, as a general rule, refrain from inquiring about convictions on job applications, and if such inquires are made, “limit the inquiries to convictions that demonstrate unfitness for the particular position.”

May 14th, 2014|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , |

Class actions against employers for violations of the FCRA are increasing

An auto parts company (CA USDC Case No. 2:14-cv-3470) and a hotel chain (CA USDC Case No. 3:14-cv-01089) are just the latest employers that have been slapped with class action lawsuits for alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (the “FCRA”) charging willful non-compliance with the FCRA’s disclosure, authorization, and/or notice requirements. And the payouts in such lawsuits can be in the millions. Within the past three years, a national trucking company reached a settlement for $4.6 million, a national retail chain for $3 million and a national pizza maker for $2.5 million.

The FCRA allows an applicant or employee to bring a private right of action against an employer who negligently or willfully fails to comply with any of the FCRA’s requirements. Under the statute of limitations, an action must be brought by the earlier of (1) two years after the date of violation discovery by the plaintiff, or (2) five years after the date on which the violation occurred. The employer’s liability for negligent non-compliance is actual damages sustained by the applicant/employee, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. A willful violation carries actual or statutory damages ranging between $100 and $1,000, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Below are general FCRA compliance reminders to employers when procuring and using background check reports prepared by a consumer reporting agency (“CRA”):

  • Provide disclosure to the applicant/employee in a standalone document that a consumer report may be obtained and used for employment purposes (language must be clear, with no superfluous information or liability waiver, and separate from the employment application);
  • Provide to the applicant/employee a summary of rights under the FCRA and applicable state notices;
  • Obtain the applicant/employee’s authorization for the consumer report;
  • Before taking adverse action based on the report (1) provide a pre-adverse action notice to the applicant/employee along with a copy of the report, and notices of rights, if not given previously, (2) wait a reasonable period of time (at least 5 days) before taking the adverse action, and (3) after deciding to take the adverse action, provide a notice that contains the FCRA required information, such as the name, address, and telephone number of the CRA that provided the report.
May 14th, 2014|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , |
© 2012- SCHERZER INTERNATIONAL | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Go to Top