Employment Decisions Archives

New Employment Background Screening Legislation for 2017

“Ban-the-box”

“Ban-the-box” measures, which generally prohibit employers from inquiring about a candidate’s criminal history (including performing background checks) until later in the hiring process, and impose significant compliance requirements, will soon be the norm rather than an exception. The city of Los Angeles, with its new Fair Chance Initiative for Hiring ordinance, is just the latest to join the fast growing list of localities (Austin, Baltimore, Buffalo, Chicago, Columbia – MO, District of Columbia, Montgomery County – MD, New York City, Philadelphia, Portland, Prince George’s County – MD, Rochester, San Francisco, and Seattle) and nine states (Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont (effective July 1, 2017)) that have enacted similar laws for private employers.

Juvenile criminal record checks

Effective January 1, 2017, AB 1843 amends Section 432.7 of the Labor Code to prohibit California employers from inquiring about and considering information regarding “an arrest, detention, process, diversion, supervision, adjudication, or court disposition” that occurred while the candidate was subject to the process and jurisdiction of a juvenile court. Certain employment situations are exempted from these requirements, such as a prohibition by law from hiring an applicant who has been convicted of a crime.

Criminal background checks for transportation network companies

Effective January 1, 2017, under California’s AB 1289, a transportation network company (“TNC”) such as Uber, is required to perform criminal background checks on all drivers. The bill also prohibits a TNC from contracting with a driver who is registered on the DOJ’s national sex offender website or has been convicted of specified felonies, or misdemeanor assault or battery, domestic violence, or driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol within the past seven years.

Credit check restrictions

The District of Columbia is the latest jurisdiction to pass a law that prohibits private employers, with certain exceptions, from conducting credit checks on job applicants. The Fair Credit in Employment Amendment Act, which amends the Human Rights Act of 1977 to include credit information as a protected trait will take effect following approval by Mayor Bowser and other enactment actions. Similar to the laws already in effect in ten states for private employers (California – AB 22; Colorado – The Employment Opportunity Act; Connecticut – SB 361; Hawaii – HB 31 SD1; Illinois – HB 4658; Maryland – HB 87; Nevada – SB 127; Oregon – SB 1045; Vermont – Act No. 154 (S. 95); Washington – RCW 19.182 and RCW 19.182.020) and at least two cities (New York City – Stop Credit Discrimination in Employment Act and Philadelphia – Bill No. 160072), it restricts checking an applicant’s credit history except in circumstances where a credit screen is justified by the position’s responsibilities or is required by law.

Wage history inquiries

Pay equity initiatives include California’s AB 1676, which effective January 1, 2017, prohibits employers from using a candidate’s prior salary as the sole basis to justify a pay disparity. California, however, has decided not to follow the Massachusetts provisions (described below) of banning inquiries regarding a candidate’s wage history.

Massachusetts was the first jurisdiction to pass a law that prevents employers from asking job candidates about their salary history. The commonwealth’s Pay Equity Act goes into effect July 1, 2018, and in addition to equal pay requirements, it makes it illegal, among other things, to: (1) require that an employee refrain from inquiring about, discussing or disclosing information about his or her wages, or any other employee’s wages; (2) screen job applicants based on their wages; (3) request or require a candidate to disclose prior wages or salary history; or (4) seek the salary history from a current or former employer, unless he/she provides express written consent, and an offer of employment, including proposed compensation, has been extended.

Effective May 23, 2017, the city of Philadelphia with its Fair Practices Ordinance: Protections Against Unlawful Discrimination will make it unlawful for employers to inquire about a candidate’s wage history during the hiring process, unless a federal, state, or local law specifically authorizes the disclosure or verification of wage information.

Drug testing – marijuana

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCLS), 31 states/jurisdictions (Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Guam, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington) have public medical marijuana and cannabis programs, while several states (Alaska – Ballot Measure No. 2; California – Proposition 64; Colorado – Amendment 64; District of Columbia – Initiative 71; Maine – Question 1; Massachusetts – Question 4; Nevada – Question 2; Oregon – Measure 91; and Washington Initiative 502) have passed laws allowing for the recreational use of marijuana by adults. Since the legal landscape for marijuana use is changing rapidly, employers should review and update their substance abuse policies, including drug-testing. Notably, marijuana remains a Schedule I drug under the federal Controlled Substances Act.

Work authorization verification

California’s SB 1001 is a revival of the 2015 AB 1065, which effective January 1, 2017, makes it unlawful for employers to:

Request additional or different documents than those required under federal law to verify that an individual is not an unauthorized immigrant
Refuse to accept documents provided by the applicant that reasonably appear to be genuine
Refuse to honor documents or work authorization based on specific status or term that accompanies the authorization to work
Attempt to reinvestigate or re-verify a candidate’s authorization to work using an unfair immigration-related practice.

Effective January 1, 2017, Tennessee’s SB 1965 requires that companies with 50 or more employees use the federal E-Verify program to confirm new employees’ work authorization.

As a reminder, starting January 22, 2017, all employers must use the new Form I-9, which is dated November 14, 2016 (the edition date is on the bottom of the form). Employers that fail to use the new form may be subject to civil penalties.

|Employment Decisions, FCRA, Legislation, Risk Management|

What’s up with California’s new E-Verify law?

The new law, AB 622, which went into effect January 1, 2016, adds Labor Code section 2814 to strengthen current California prohibitions on employers’ use of E-Verify and other electronic employment eligibility verification systems. Labor Code section 2811 (enacted in 2011) already prohibits private employers from using E-Verify or such other verification systems, unless required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds.

The amended Labor Code section 2814 expands the definition of an unlawful employment practice to prohibit an employer or any other person or entity from using the E-Verify system at a time or in a manner not required by a specified federal law or not authorized by a federal agency memorandum of understanding to check the employment authorization status of an existing employee, or an applicant who has not received an offer of employment, except as required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds. The new law also requires an employer that uses the E-Verify system to provide to the affected employee any notification issued by the Social Security Administration or the United States Department of Homeland Security containing information specific to his/her E-Verify case or any tentative non-confirmation notice. Employers will now face a civil penalty of $10,000 for each violation of these provisions.

Read the text of AB 622
Read guidance published by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on conducting internal audits regarding Form I-9 compliance

|Employment Decisions|

Employers in New Jersey may face tougher restrictions for employment credit checks

Assembly Bill A2298Â which prohibits employment discrimination against a current or prospective employee based on information in a credit report advanced to a second reading on December 14, 2015. The proposed legislation prohibits an employer from requiring a credit check on a current or prospective employee, unless the employer is required to do so by law, or reasonably believes that an employee has engaged in a specific activity that is financial in nature and constitutes a violation of law. The bill does not prevent an employer from performing a credit inquiry or taking action if credit history is a bona fide occupational qualification of a particular position or certain employment classifications. An earlier version of the legislation passed the Senate in May 2012 in a 22-16 vote but was never voted on in the full Assembly.

|Employment Decisions, Legislation|

Philadelphia expands its ban-the-box ordinance

On December 15, 2015, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter signed Bill 150815 expanding the city’s ban-the-box legislation. The new ordinance, which goes into effect on or about March 14, 2016, amends Chapter 9-3500 of the Philadelphia Code entitled “Fair Criminal Records Screening Standards,” by modifying certain definitions and adding additional requirements regarding the screening of job and license applicants for criminal history. With limited exceptions, the new ordinance applies to employers having any employees within the city of Philadelphia. (The prior ordinance covered employers with 10 or more employees.) The highlights of the law include:

questions about criminal records must be removed from the job application–the ordinance specifically notes that multi-state applications may not include the question with a disclaimer for Philadelphia applicants not to answer;
employment materials cannot contain questions or refer to the applicant’s willingness to submit to a background check before a conditional offer has been extended;
criminal record inquiries must be postponed until after a conditional offer has been made;
notice of the background check must state that any consideration of the results will be tailored to the job;
employment decisions can only include a conviction that occurred less than seven years ago–employers may add to the seven year period any time of actual incarceration served because of the offense;
screening process must include individualized assessment for each applicant;
if the applicant is rejected based on a criminal conviction, he/she must be advised of the specific reason and provided with a copy of the record.

|Educational Series, Employment Decisions|

Importance of background checks in employment decisions

Performing a background check as part of the hiring process, promotion, or retention in today’s world is essential. Stakeholders expect it. Regulators mandate it.

In a turbulent economy, the pool of job candidates is greater than ever and misrepresentations abound. For many firms, once an offer of employment has been extended, it is common practice to check the candidate’s background. Depending on the risk level of the position and its requirements, background checks can run the gamut from reference calls done internally, to using a consumer reporting agency to perform comprehensive searches to determine the existence of potentially negative information, such as criminal matters, civil litigation, bankruptcy filings, tax liens, judgments, regulatory actions, driving violations, and adverse media publicity, and to verify academic, licensing, employment and other professional qualifications and claims.

The law is clear–an employer who hires or retains a dangerous or incompetent employee can be held liable for that employee’s wrongful acts, if committed in the course and scope of his or her employment. The theories of negligent hiring and retention go even further–someone who is injured by an employee can sue the employer even if the employee’s conduct is outside of the employer’s control. For instance, one court found the owner of an apartment complex liable for a handyman’s assault of a tenant after working hours. The liability existed because the owner failed to screen the handyman’s background, which included a long list of violent crimes.

Underpinning the negligent hiring and retention theories is the negligence of the employer—that is, the employer knew or should have known the employee was unfit for the job, posed an unreasonable risk of harm to others, and did nothing about it. Virtually every state recognizes these theories as causes of action, or if not, has a similar legal theory. One of the best ways to reduce the risk of negligent hiring and retention liability is to perform adequate background checks as part of the hiring process and in connection with promotions or retention.

A well-designed background screening program that is compliant with applicable laws and regulations makes good business sense, as an individual’s prior history is often a predictor of future performance, workplace behavior and cultural fit. Various studies have shown that the cost of a bad hire is one to five times the salary of the job in question, considering the direct and indirect cost involved in recruiting, hiring, training, development, administration, management, and potential litigation, as well as the wasted wages and benefits. Comprehensive background screening can help identify individuals who may have a propensity for violence, theft, fraud, dishonesty, substance abuse, absenteeism, and other misconduct, and at the same time, find the candidates that can make the employer more successful.

Many employers are also required by government regulation, their insurance carriers, and/or their clients to conduct background checks. A comprehensive background check is clearly worth the investment. Employers never want to say “we should have known,” as an uninformed employment decision can result in significant financial losses and quickly tarnish an employer’s reputation.

|Educational Series, Employment Decisions|

Oregon bans the box

Oregon became the eighth state to ban the box after the state legislature passed House Bill 3025 and Governor Kate Brown signed the bill into law on June 26.

Beginning January 1, 2016, employers in the state may not require an applicant to disclose a criminal conviction on an employment application or at any time prior to an initial interview. If no interview takes place, disclosure may not be mandated prior to a conditional offer of employment. That means employers are only permitted to ask about criminal convictions during an interview or after it occurs.

Employers must notify an applicant that they will be subject to a criminal background check or required to disclose any convictions but “nothing in [the law] prevents an employer from considering an applicant’s conviction history when making a hiring decision” as long as the employer times the questions in compliance with the statute.

HB 3025 applies to all employers in the state with just four exceptions. Law enforcement agencies, employers in the criminal justice system, and employers seeking “a nonemployee volunteer” are all exempt. Positions where federal, state, or local law requires consideration of an applicant’s criminal history are also not covered by the statute.

Tasked with enforcement: the Oregon Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries. The law did not create a private right of action allowing individuals to file suit. Importantly for employers in the state, the legislature elected not to preempt municipalities from enacting their own stricter version of the law. For example, the Portland City Council is currently considering its own take on a “ban the box” law that would apply to employers in the city.

Oregon’s passage of the measure adds the state to the fast growing list of jurisdictions to ban the box. There are over 100 cities and counties, and 18 states representing nearly every region of the country that have adopted the policies — California (2013, 2010), Colorado (2012), Connecticut (2010), Delaware (2014), Georgia (2015), Hawaii (1998), Illinois (2014, 2013), Maryland (2013), Massachusetts (2010), Minnesota (2013, 2009), Nebraska (2014), New Jersey (2014), New Mexico (2010), Ohio (2015), Oregon (2015), Rhode Island (2013), Vermont (2015), and Virginia (2015). Six states—Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Rhode Island—have removed the conviction history question on job applications for private employers, which advocates embrace as the next step in the evolution of these policies.

Federally, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) endorsed removing the conviction question from the job application as a best practice in its 2012 guidance making clear that federal civil rights laws regulate employment decisions based on arrests and convictions.

Employers should keep a close eye on their local authorities to ensure continuing compliance as the list of jurisdictions continues to grow.

Read House Bill 3025.

|Employment Decisions|

Mini FCRA update: Georgia enacts new law, California law mired in uncertainty

Enacted in 1970, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) provides federal regulation of consumer reporting agencies that provide consumer reports to third parties.

In the 45 years since the FCRA took effect, several states have passed their own version of the statute to provide additional protections for consumers. Colloquially referred to as “mini” FCRAs, the laws can be found in Arizona, California, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, and Washington.

Joining the group: Georgia, where House Bill 328 took effect on July 1. The new law applies to consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) that “conduct business” within the state, defined as those entities that “provide information to any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or any other group however organized that is domiciled within this state or whose principal place of business” is located within Georgia’s borders.

A CRA encompasses any person or entity “which, for monetary fees or dues or on a cooperative nonprofit basis, regularly engages in whole or in part in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information or other information on consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties.”

For its part, a consumer report broadly includes “any written, oral, or other communication of any information bearing on a consumer’s credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living which is used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumer’s eligibility for purposes of credit, insurance, or employment.”

As it closely tracks the federal FCRA, Georgia’s law provides that a CRA that furnishes consumer reports for employment purposes in compliance with the federal statute will be in compliance with the state version.

While Georgia’s new law already took effect, other states have struggled with application of their mini FCRAs.

For example, in 2013, a federal court judge California ruled that one of the state’s two FCRA corrollaries, the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA), was unconstitutionally vague in Roe v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc. The case involved an anonymous plaintiff who sued when she failed to obtain employment. She argued she didn’t get the job as a result of an allegedly inaccurate background check furnished by the defendant to her prospective employer in violation of both the FCRA and the ICRAA.

The defendant argued that the ICRAA was unconstitutionally vague as applied and the court agreed. In addition to the FCRA and the ICRAA, California had previously enacted the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRAA), a law that governs consumer credit checks. The interplay between the CCRAA and ICRAA resulted in confusion for covered entities, the court found, as criminal background information about consumers was regulated by both laws, leaving companies uncertain about which statute’s requirements actually applied.

Although the plaintiff appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal appellate panel dismissed the appeal for procedural reasons; on remand, the federal district court later dismissed the case with prejudice in December 2013. However, the opinion in Roe remains valid law in the state, leaving a shadow of uncertainty hanging over the ICRAA.

Read Georgia’s House Bill 328.

Read Roe v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc.

|Employment Decisions, FCRA|

California’s marijuana laws present challenges for employers

Even for those not partaking in marijuana, the various California laws regulating its use can be confusing – particularly for employers.

The trend in state legislatures to permit the recreational and/or medicinal use of marijuana began with California’s Compassionate Use Act in 1996, which allowed state residents to use the drug for medical purposes and decriminalized possession of less than 28 grams. Complicating the matter, however: marijuana use remains prohibited by federal law.

With limited use of marijuana legal in the state, how can employers find out about a worker’s use of the drug or limit it without running afoul of state law?

Employers have two options, either try to get their hands on historical information, such as criminal convictions, or seek out current input via drug testing.

Criminal history related to drugs in many instances is off-limits for employers. Job applicants cannot be required to disclose an arrest that did not result in a conviction or participation in a pretrial or post-trial diversion program. Any criminal history that has been expunged, sealed, or dismissed will be unavailable as are marijuana-related convictions dating back more than two years.

While California has not banned the box for private employers, local jurisdictions such as San Francisco have, requiring employers to wait until after a live interview or determining that an applicant meets the qualifications for the position before inquiring into criminal history. Background checks – whether performed in-house or by a third party – require compliance with federal law (the Fair Credit and Reporting Act (FCRA) as well as California’s counterpart, the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (although the legality of the state statute is unclear, see story below for more detail). And such investigations into applicants’ history are a current target for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission – which has filed multiple lawsuits (https://scherzer.co/eeoc-loses-again-in-challenge-to-background-checks/) against employers alleging their background checks constitute disparate impact discrimination against protected groups like African-Americans – and a popular basis for class actions. Recent cases have settled with multi-million awards, including a $2.5 million payout by Domino’s Pizza and a $6.8 million deal between Publix Super Markets and a class of applicants alleging the company violated the FCRA.

Drug tests can be viable option for employers. Once a job offer has been made, an employer may require an applicant to pass a drug test as a condition of employment (as long as all potential employees are subject to the same requirement). After a worker has been hired, drug tests may be used if an employer has a reasonable suspicion that the employee is under the influence. Certain jobs – such as those in the transportation industry like truck drivers – may permit such testing more freely. If a test comes back positive, employers do have the discretion to discipline, terminate, or choose not to hire an applicant even if the individual legally holds a medical marijuana card issued by the state. In addition, despite the requirements under the Americans With Disabilities Act and California state law to provide reasonable accommodations to employees considered disabled, neither federal nor state law requires employers to permit marijuana use as such an accommodation.

|Criminal Activity, Employment Decisions|

Company fined $600,000 for I-9 violations

A recent decision from the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer provides an important reminder: keep up on I-9 compliance or face a sizable civil penalty.

Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1324(a)(1)(B) of the Immigration Reform and Control Act, employers must examine and document the identity and immigration documents of employees. Since the Act’s 1986 enactment, the Employment Eligibility Verification Form, colloquially known as the I-9, is used to verify the identity and employment authorization of individuals hired for work in the United States. Both the employee and the employer must complete the form. In addition, employers must examine the worker’s documentation establishing his or her identity and employment authorization to determine if the documents “reasonably appear to be genuine.”

In 2013, the agency transitioned employers to use of a new form with additional fields (including employee telephone number and e-mail address), new formatting, and clarified instructions. Failure to complete an I-9 form can lead to an enforcement action from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with penalties ranging from $110 to $1,100 per form.

Recently, a California-based event design and construction company learned that lesson the hard way when the agency charged the employer with 818 violations of the statute, seeking $812,665.25 in civil penalties.

The company’s “employment verification procedures are sufficiently defective to foreclose a claim of either good faith or substantial compliance,” Administrative Law Judge Ellen K. Thomas wrote, finding that the company engaged in the majority of the violations alleged.

The judge found most of the violations occurred in Section 2 of the I-9, which requires a representative from the employer to review the documents presented by the employee to prove identity and work authorization and then sign, under penalty of perjury, that he or she reviewed the documents. ICE found that 797 of the company’s I-9 forms were left blank. Characterizing the employer attestation in Section 2 as “the very heart” of the verification process, the ALJ fined Hartmann $700 for each violation, or $557,900.

Judge Thomas found other serious violations in the company’s I-9 forms, including failing to ensure that in Section 1 employees checked a box attesting to status as a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident, or alien authorized to work (with the need to add an alien registration number if either lawful permanent resident or alien authorized to work were selected). Many employees also failed to sign Section 1, the court found, and the company neglected to have employees list a driver’s license expiration date in Section 2.

The company tried to mitigate the fine by arguing that it improved its processes after receiving notice from ICE, but the judge was not persuaded, particularly as the company made no effort until after the federal agency came knocking. “

[T]he company does appear to need additional motivation to conform its employment verification processes to what the law requires,” Judge Thomas wrote, issuing a total fine of $605,250.

To avoid a similar fate, compliance with I-9 requirements should be taken seriously and employers should ensure that the appropriate forms are being correctly filled out.

Read the decision.

|Employment Decisions|

Right to be Forgotten movement gains backers in the U.S.

Seeking to expand recognition of the Right to be Forgotten to the United States, a consumer group has filed a petition with the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”) requesting that Google be required to remove links upon request.

Last year, the European Court of Justice ordered Google to remove links about the financial history of a Spanish attorney, finding that the links to stories about his debts were “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive,” establishing the Right to be Forgotten (“RTBF”). Over the last 12 months, Google has received 274,462 removal requests and evaluated 997,008 URLs for removal from its search results.

In the hopes of bringing the RTBF to the United States, Consumer Watchdog recently filed a petition with the FTC. The group argued that by providing the ability to request removal of links to European consumers in Europe, Google engaged in unfair and deceptive practices in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Not offering Americans the right to request removal – while providing it to millions of users across Europe – is unfair, the group argued to the FTC. And Google’s claims in its privacy policy that “

[p]rotecting the privacy and security” of customer information “is a top priority,” are deceptive because the company limits protections by denying the RTBF, the consumer group added.

Consumer Watchdog listed several examples of U.S. citizens who have been harmed without the RTBF in this country, ranging from a guidance counselor who was fired after photos of her as a lingerie model from 20 years prior surfaced online to a woman whose mug shot appeared online after she was arrested defending herself against an abusive boyfriend. The group also told the FTC that Google already removes certain types of links from search results in this country (such as revenge porn), meaning it has the capability to remove other links as well.

“As clearly demonstrated by its willingness to remove links to certain information when requested in the United States, Google could easily offer the RTBF or the Right To Relevancy request option to Americans,” Consumer Watchdog wrote. “It unfairly and deceptively opts not to do so.”

The RTBF doesn’t implicate First Amendment concerns or constitute censorship, the group said, because the content remains on the Internet. The right “simply allows a person to request that links from their name to data that is inadequate, irrelevant, no longer relevant, or excessive be removed from search results,” according to the petition. “Americans deserve the same ability to make such a privacy-protecting request and have it honored.”

Further, the right isn’t automatic. “Removal won’t always happen, but the balance Google has found between privacy and the public’s right to know demonstrates Google can make the RTBF or Right To Relevancy work in the United States,” Consumer Watchdog concluded.

Meanwhile, the issue of expanding the RTBF has also come up in Europe. In July, a French regulatory authority ordered Google to remove all the links from its search pages including Google.com in the U.S. – not just the European pages. Google refused to comply and filed an appeal of the order. “We believe that no one country should have the authority to control what content someone in a second country can access,” Google’s global privacy counsel Peter Fleischer wrote on the company’s blog.

Read Consumer Watchdog’s petition to the FTC.

|Criminal Activity, Educational Series, Employment Decisions|