Scherzer Blog

Tenant screening laws update: passing background check costs to the applicants

The states of Washington and Oregon recently enacted laws in connection with tenant screening. Among the provisions in both Washington’s RCW §59.18.257 and Oregon’s OAS §90.295, is that the entire cost of the background check can be charged to the applicant, if the screening is performed by a consumer reporting agency (“CRA”). However, if the landlord conducts the background check, it may not charge in excess of the customary fees of the CRAs in its geographical area.

Notably, California’s Civil Code §1950.6(b) provides that a landlord cannot charge (or pass-through) to the applicant more than $30 for a background check. This application screening fee may be adjusted annually by the landlord or its agent commensurate with an increase in the Consumer Price Index. (The current adjusted amount is $41.50.)

|Business Transactions, Legislation|

New regulation in the UK mandates licensing of private investigators

Presented to the Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Home Department by Command of Her Majesty on July 31, 2013, the new regulation, which will take effect next year, makes operating as an unlicensed private investigator in the United Kingdom a criminal offense. Licenses will be granted by the Security Industry Authority only when an applicant has successfully completed training and achieved a government-recognized qualification, including an understanding of relevant laws and standards, and the skills required to conduct activities ethically; has confirmed his/her identify; and has passed a criminal background check.

|Legislation|

Illinois amends its password protection law to exclude financial services firms

In August 2013, Illinois passed an amendment to its existing password protection law that lifts restrictions for financial services firms, enabling them to monitor their employees’ business-related social media communications. Effective January 1, 2014, the law will no longer apply when an employer requests access to a “professional account” to “monitor or retain employee communications as required under the state’s insurance or federal law or by a self-regulatory organization. The amendment also permits Illinois employers to seek access to a professional account when the employer has “a duty to screen applicants or employees prior to hiring.”

|Judgment|

New Jersey enacts law for social media password protection

Continuing a nationwide momentum of restricting employers’ access to personal social media content of applicants and employees, in August 2013, New Jersey passed Act 2878 joining eleven other states (Maryland, Illinois, California, Michigan, Utah, New Mexico, Arkansas, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and Nevada) with similar laws. Dozens more states and the U.S. Congress are considering comparable legislation. New Jersey’s new law, which becomes effective December 1, 2013, prohibits employers from asking or requiring that applicants or employees “provide or disclose any user name or password, or in any way provide the employer access to a personal account through an electronic communications device.”

|Legislation, Social Media|

EEOC fails to prove disparate impact in another case involving background checks

In August 2013, a Maryland federal judge dismissed without a trial a putative suit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”) against event-promoter Freeman for alleged discriminatory background screening practices. Calling the EEOC’s expert report “an egregious example of scientific dishonesty,” the court granted a summary judgment to Freeman based on its findings that the EEOC’s expert testimony was unreliable, and would not support a claim of disparate impact. According to the court’s opinion, the EEOC failed to establish an element of its case when it made no effort to analyze Freeman’s multi-step screening policies to identify the specific practices that caused the alleged disparate impact. The court went on to say: “By bringing actions of this nature, the EEOC has placed many employers in the ‘Hobson’s choice’ of ignoring criminal history and credit backgrounds, thus exposing themselves to potential liability for criminal and fraudulent acts committed by employees, or, on the other hand, incurring the wrath of the EEOC for having utilized information deemed fundamental by most employers.”

The EEOC most likely will appeal the decision, as it has done in another high-profile background check case in Ohio, where in January 2013 the court similarly ruled that the EEOC failed to prove disparate impact. Although these rulings represent a victory for the employer, the EEOC has not reversed its position, and is expected to continue its attempts to severely limit, if not eliminate, the use of criminal and credit checks by private employers.

|Employment Decisions, Judgment|

California passes bill that would require policy disclosures for “do not track”

On August 28, 2013, the California State Senate and Assembly passed AB 370, to amend the California Online Privacy Protection Act (CalOPPA) that would require operators of commercial websites or “online services” accessible to California residents to disclose how the site responds to “do not track” (DNT) browser settings, which in turn will trigger enforceability by federal and state authorities. The amendment is expected to be signed by Governor Jerry Brown.

|Legislation|

FINRA issues investor alert about calls from brokerage firm imposters

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) issued a new alert on August 6, 2013 labeled as Cold Calls from Brokerage Firm Imposters—Beware of Old-Fashioned Phishing to warn investors of calls from scammers claiming to be representatives of at least one well-known brokerage firm. In this latest twist on phishing scams, the fraudsters are cold-calling investors claiming to offer information about certificates of deposit with yields well above the best rates in the market in an attempt to get potential victims to divulge their personal or financial account information.

FINRA is reminding investors who receive unsolicited calls to never provide personal information or authorize any transfer of funds to any unknown person, and encourages anyone who believes that he/she has been scammed to file a complaint using its online Complaint Center or send a tip to FINRA’s Office of the Whistleblower.

|Fraud|

SEC rule amends certain broker/dealer reporting, audit and notification requirements

The amendments issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) last month include:

a requirement that broker-dealer audits be conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (the “PCAOB”) “in light of explicit oversight authority provided to the PCAOB by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to oversee these audits;”
a requirement that a broker-dealer that clears transactions or carries customer accounts agree to allow representatives of the Commission or the broker-dealer’s designated examining authority (“DEA”) to review the documentation associated with certain reports of the broker-dealer’s independent public accountant, and to allow the accountant to discuss the findings relating to the reports with those representatives when requested in connection with a regulatory examination of the broker-dealer; and
a requirement that a broker-dealer file a new form with its DEA that elicits information about the broker-dealer’s practices with respect to the custody of securities and funds of customers and non-customers.

|Business Transactions, Legislation|

Disciplinary action serves as reminder of due diligence requirement in Reg. D offerings

A recent disciplinary action reaffirmed FINRA member firms’ obligations to conduct a reasonable investigation of the issuer and the securities it recommends in offerings made under the SEC’s Regulation D, commonly known as private placements. Regulation D provides exemptions from the registration requirements of Section 5 under the Securities & Exchange Act, but it does not exempt these transactions from the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. A broker-dealer thus has a duty—enforceable under federal securities laws and FINRA rules—to conduct a reasonable investigation of the securities it recommends. Moreover, any broker-dealer that recommends securities offered under Regulation D must meet the suitability requirements under NASD Rule 2310, and comply with the advertising and supervisory rules of FINRA and the SEC.

A broker-dealer’s reasonable investigation must be tailored to each Regulation D offering, as its scope will depend on factors such as the sophistication of the investors, the broker-dealer’s affiliation with the issuer, and other facts and circumstances of the offering. The investigation, at a minimum, should include background checks of the issuer and its management, the business prospects of the issuer, the assets held or to be acquired by the issuer, the claims being made, and the intended use of the proceeds.

A firm that engages in Regulation D offerings also must have supervisory procedures under NASD Rule 3010 that are designed to ensure that its personnel and representatives conduct an inquiry that is sufficient to comply with the legal and regulatory requirements; that they perform the suitability analysis required by NASD Rule 2310; that they qualify the investors’ eligibility to purchase the securities; and that they abide by the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws and FINRA rules regarding the preparation and distribution of offering documents or sales literature. And a broker-dealer has a further duty to adequately investigate any information located during the investigation that may be considered a “red flag.”

|Employment Decisions, Fraud|

Rhode Island is the latest state to “ban the box”

On July 16, 2013, Rhode Island’s SB357 was signed into law, making it the eighth state to pass “ban the box” legislation. Effective January 1, 2014, the law, with a few exceptions, will make it an “unlawful employment practice” for an employer in the state to inquire whether an applicant has ever been convicted of a crime before the ﬁrst interview. In “banning the box” for private employers, Rhode Island follows on the heels of Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Minnesota, as well as the cities of Seattle, Buffalo, Philadelphia, and Newark. And many more jurisdictions have already “banned the box” for public employers and public contractors, and even more have some form of the legislation under consideration. Congress too is pondering its federal HR 6220 or “Ban the Box Act” introduced last July, which similar to these state and local laws, would make it illegal for an employer to ask about criminal history in an interview or on an employment application.

|Employment Decisions, Legislation|