Scherzer Blog

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

Last month, the 6^th 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

|Employment Decisions, Judgment|

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.”

|Employment Decisions|

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.

|Employment Decisions, Judgment, Lawsuit|

Supreme Court ruling extends SOX whistleblower protection to private contractors

On March 4, 2014, the Supreme Court in a split decision ruled that employees of private companies servicing public companies are covered by the whistleblower protections of Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”)

[U.S., No. 12-3, 3-4-14]. In this case, two employees of a private company contracted by a publicly-traded mutual fund alleged that they were terminated in retaliation for raising fraud issues about the fund. With this decision, the Supreme Court has expanded the universe of companies regulated by the SOX whistleblower provision from about 5,000 public companies to potentially millions of private ones, including the smallest of businesses. Employers of every size and type have to be prepared for potential SOX whistleblower retaliation claims if they are a contractor or subcontractor of a publicly traded company.

|Educational Series, Fraud, Judgment|

FTC and EEOC jointly publish guides on employment-purpose background checks

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) have co-published two brief guides on employment background checks that explain the rights and responsibilities of the people on both sides of the desk. See Background Checks: What Employers Need to Know and Background Checks: What Job Applicants and Employees Should Know. For employers, the guidelines cover only the basics that must be considered for procuring and using employment-purpose background checks and do not attempt to explain in detail the many compliance requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and analogous state and municipal consumer reporting laws, regulations, codes and statutes.

|Employment Decisions|

San Francisco enacts ordinance for using criminal records in employment decisions

Effective August 13, 2014, under San Francisco’s Fair Chance Ordinance, companies with 20 or more employees are prohibited from inquiring about an applicant’s criminal history on the employment application or during the first live interview. Along with banning the box, the ordinance imposes several additional restrictions and mandates certain considerations for individualized assessment. San Francisco employers must also ensure that their notice and consent forms for criminal background inquiries later in the process comply with the guidelines that will be published by San Francisco’s Office of Labor Standards Enforcement (OLSE) as well as with the already existing background check disclosure/authorization requirements under California’s ICRAA and the FCRA.

San Francisco is the ninth jurisdiction with legislation that affects private employers. The remaining eight are the states of Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and the cities of Buffalo, NY, Newark, NJ, Philadelphia, PA, and Seattle, WA. Multi-state employers should consider whether their particular circumstances warrant adopting individualized employment applications for jurisdictions with ban-the-box laws, or whether to use a nationwide standard form. Employers who opt for a standard electronic application for all locations need to include a clear and unambiguous disclaimer for applicants in each applicable ban-the-box jurisdiction. It is uncertain whether such disclaimers are sufficient for paper applications of multi-state employers in at least one ban-the-box jurisdiction (Minnesota) or if the box must be removed altogether.

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.

Note: Effective August 13, 2014, with our California employment-purpose disclosure/ authorization form, we will be including a supplemental disclosure/authorization notice as prescribed by the OLSE, to use by San Francisco employers.

|Criminal Activity, Employment Decisions|

FINRA has some common sense advice for avoiding investment scams

Guarantees: Be suspect of anyone who guarantees that an investment will perform a certain way. All investments carry some degree of risk.
Unregistered products: Many investment scams involve unlicensed individuals selling unregistered securities, ranging from stocks, bonds, notes, hedge funds, oil or gas deals, or fictitious instruments, such as prime bank investments.
Overly consistent returns: Any investment that consistently goes up month after month, or that provides remarkably steady returns regardless of market conditions, should raise suspicions, especially during turbulent times. Even the most stable investments can experience hiccups once in a while.
Complex strategies: Avoid anyone who credits a highly complex investing technique for unusual success. Legitimate professionals should be able to explain clearly what they are doing. It is critical that you fully understand any investment that you are considering, including what it is, what the risks are and how the investment makes money.
Missing documentation: If someone tries to sell you a security with no documentation, such as a no prospectus in the case of a stock or mutual fund, and no offering circular in the case of a bond, he/she may be selling unregistered securities. The same is true of stocks without stock symbols.
Account discrepancies: Unauthorized trades, missing funds or other problems with your account statements could be the result of a genuine error or they could indicate churning or fraud. Keep an eye on account statements to ensure that activity is consistent with your instructions, and know who holds your assets. For instance, is the investment adviser also the custodian? Or is there an independent third-party custodian? It can be easier for fraud to occur if an adviser is also the custodian of the assets and keeper of the accounts.

|Educational Series, Fraud|

Identity theft remains on top of FTC’s national complaints list

Identity theft continues to top the FTC’s national ranking of consumer complaints, with American consumers reported as losing over $1.6 billion to overall fraud in 2013, according to its annual report released last month. The FTC received more than two million complaints overall, of which 290,056 or 14%, involved identity theft. Thirty percent of these were tax or wage-related, which continues to be the largest category within identity theft complaints. Debt collection followed identity theft with 204,644 or 10% of total complaints, and banking and lending was number three with 152,707 or 7%.

Florida was noted as the state with the highest per capita rate of reported identity theft and fraud complaints, followed by Georgia and California for identity theft complaints, and Nevada and Georgia for fraud and other complaints.

|Educational Series, Fraud|

Accuracy issues top credit reporting complaints

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) last month released its report regarding approximately 31,000 complaints filed between October 22, 2012 and February 1, 2014, by consumers frustrated with credit reporting companies. The majority of the complaints pertained to accuracy and completeness of credit reports.

|Educational Series, Fraud|

Another lawsuit reminds employers about FCRA disclosure/authorization requirements

A recently filed class action NDC Ca. No. (4:14-cv-00592-DMR, 2-7-14) is a reminder to employers that under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (the “FCRA”) their disclosure and authorization form to the applicant/employee for obtaining a background check must be in a standalone document, and cannot contain confusing or extraneous information. The lawsuit alleges that the defendant employer used an invalid form to obtain consent to conduct background checks, that it relied on an authorization that was included alongside several other consent paragraphs in an online employment application, and that the consent form contained a release of liability related to obtaining the background check. Two published court decisions already ruled that including a liability waiver constitutes a technical violation under the FCRA. (WD Pa. 2013, No. 2:08-cv-01730-MRH, and Dist. Md., 2012, No. 8:11-cv-01823-DKC.)

|Judgment, Lawsuit|