ORDER A REPORT
SECURE FILE UPLOAD

Asset‑Backed Securities (ABS) are structured fixed‑income instruments backed by pools of financial assets other than residential or commercial mortgages. These assets generate predictable cash flows—such as interest and principal payments—which are used to service the ABS issued to investors. ABS allow lenders to convert illiquid receivables into marketable securities, improving liquidity and balance‑sheet efficiency.

Why Civil Court Searches Are a Smart Hiring Advantage

In today’s complex hiring environment, civil record searches elevate screening from a routine step to a strategic safeguard for your business. In case of disputes or legal challenges related to hiring decisions, including civil court searches as part of the screening process shows that the employer conducted a reasonably thorough background check.

What Can Civil Records Reveal?

  • Workplace Safety
    A civil records search may disclose an applicant’s actual or potential for violence in cases that involve petitions for restraining orders regarding stalking, harassment, or domestic violence; whether the applicant is currently under a restraining order for any of the foregoing, or a complaint for assault, battery, property damage, or vandalism.
  • Workplace Conduct
    Civil records may disclose whether the applicant has engaged in antisocial, inappropriate workplace conduct or behavior contrary to public policy. For example, a civil records search may disclose complaints for workplace sexual harassment or discrimination, and whether such a case is pending, thereby leaving doubt in determining the applicant’s liability. There is also the issue of reputational risk to the employer for an applicant who was found liable in such cases.
  • Criminal-related Conduct
    Civil records may disclose whether an applicant has been sued by a former employer for financial claims such as embezzlement, theft, intentional property damage, or improperly using or disclosing an employer’s trade secrets. Although some of these claims can also be charged as crimes, a local prosecutor may decline to do so, and employers are left with only civil remedies.
  • Other Records
    The most common civil records are lawsuits for breach of contract, personal injury, small claims, or other minor disputes, as well as records of liens, foreclosures, and judgments. Whether any of these records provide relevant information for an employment decision can only be made on a case-by-case basis.

Building a Defensible Hiring Process

The purpose of a civil records check is to create a more complete profile. By identifying potential risks early, employers can:

  • Mitigate Risk: Help protect employees, customers, and organizational reputation.
  • Demonstrate Due Diligence: Show a reasonably thorough screening process if hiring decisions are later challenged.
  • Make Better Decisions: Evaluate findings in context, based on the specific role and responsibilities.

 

 

Disclaimer: This communication is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The summary provided in this alert does not, and cannot, cover in detail what employers need to know about the amendments to the Philadelphia Fair Chance Law or how to incorporate its requirements into their hiring process. No recipient should act or refrain from acting based on any information provided here without advice from a qualified attorney licensed in the applicable jurisdiction.

May 14th, 2026|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , |

In‑House Background Screening: A Closer Look at the Tradeoffs

There is no law or regulation that prohibits employers from conducting their own background screening. In fact, many organizations, especially smaller companies or those hiring infrequently, assume that doing it themselves will be faster, cheaper, or more flexible. But while in‑house screening is legally permitted, it comes with both benefits and meaningful tradeoffs that employers should understand before choosing that path.

The Pros

One advantage of employer‑led screening is control. Employers can decide exactly what to look for, how deep to go, and how the information is weighed in hiring decisions.

Cost is another perceived benefit. By avoiding third‑party screening vendors, employers may reduce direct expenses, at least on the surface. For organizations with limited hiring volume, internal screening can seem economically efficient.

Finally, some employers value the speed and informality of conducting their own research, especially when reviewing publicly available information or calling references directly. When done carefully, this can support timely decision‑making.

The Cons

The biggest downside is increased legal and compliance risk. While laws like the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) primarily apply when third‑party screening companies are used, employers conducting their own checks are still subject to anti‑discrimination laws, state and local fair‑chance rules, privacy considerations, and consistency requirements. Without structured processes, it’s easy for internal screening to become uneven, undocumented, or vulnerable to unconscious bias.

Accuracy is another concern. Public records are often incomplete, outdated, or misleading when viewed without proper context. Employers relying on surface‑level searches may unintentionally base decisions on incorrect or mismatched information, creating both legal exposure and reputational harm.

There’s also the issue of internal capacity and expertise. Effective background screening isn’t just about finding information; it’s about interpreting it. Understanding how to assess relevance, and apply findings consistently requires experience. Many employers underestimate the level of expertise required.

Finally, in‑house screening can blur accountability. When adverse decisions are challenged, employers must be able to show how information was obtained, evaluated, and applied fairly. Without third‑party documentation or standardized workflows, that defense becomes harder.

The Bottom Line

Employers can conduct their own employment background screening, but permission does not equal protection. Whether screening is handled internally or with external support, the process must be lawful, consistent, accurate, and grounded in sound judgment. Cutting corners on screening may save time upfront but it often costs more later.

 

Disclaimer: This communication is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The summary provided in this alert does not, and cannot, cover in detail what employers need to know about the amendments to the Philadelphia Fair Chance Law or how to incorporate its requirements into their hiring process. No recipient should act or refrain from acting based on any information provided here without advice from a qualified attorney licensed in the applicable jurisdiction.

April 21st, 2026|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , |

California AB 2095: Refining the “Fair Chance” Process

California’s hiring landscape is known for its complexity, and Assembly Bill 2095 (AB 2095) looks to add another layer of precision. As a proposed update to the state’s existing Fair Chance Act, this bill aims to tighten the “ban-the-box” rules, ensuring that criminal history is only considered when it is directly relevant to the position. 

What AB 2095 Would Change

While current laws already restrict when employers can ask about criminal history, AB 2095 focuses on the how. The goal is to eliminate indirect pressure on applicants to disclose their past before a formal assessment is made.

Under the bill, covered employers would be prohibited from:

  • Requesting consent for a conviction history background check before providing applicants with a written description of the specific job duties for which a conviction could be disqualifying.
  • Initiating a conviction history check before that job‑duty information is provided.
  • Requiring applicants to pay for any conviction history background check.
  • Requiring applicants, before or after a conditional offer, to disclose convictions or provide documentation related to convictions or rehabilitation.

Compliance Steps

If passed, AB 2095 would require employers to be more deliberate and transparent before any criminal history screening occurs. This includes:

  • Updating offer letters, disclosures, and authorization forms to ensure proper sequencing and content;
  • Confirming that job‑specific risk and duty information is clearly documented and provided to applicants before requesting screening consent; and
  • Coordinating closely with background screening vendors, particularly where vendors host or manage employer forms.

Failure to align hiring practices with AB 2095 requirements could increase exposure to discrimination claims under California’s civil rights laws.

 

Disclaimer: This communication is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The summary provided in this alert does not, and cannot, cover in detail what employers need to know about the amendments to the Philadelphia Fair Chance Law or how to incorporate its requirements into their hiring process. No recipient should act or refrain from acting based on any information provided here without advice from a qualified attorney licensed in the applicable jurisdiction.

April 14th, 2026|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , , , |

Does the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) Apply to Background Checks of Law Firm Partners?

It depends on who you ask. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has long taken the position that the FCRA should be interpreted broadly, and in its guidance, treats “employment purpose” as covering not only traditional employees, but also non‑traditional workers such as independent contractors, freelancers, temporary workers, and volunteers. However, in recent years, a few federal district courts have issued opinions that don’t align with the FTC’s guidance and instead use a strict common-law definition of the employer-employee relationship.

Because there’s no clear answer and the FCRA does not account for modern law firm partnership tiers, a hybrid compliance approach may be the best practice for avoiding FCRA liability.

Background Checks are Consumer Reports When Used for an Employment Purpose

The FCRA regulates information contained in consumer reports in order to protect the consumer’s privacy, promote fairness, and to guarantee the data reported is as accurate as possible. When a background check is used for employment purposes, it is considered a consumer report, and the requirements of the FCRA apply, including disclosure, authorization, and adverse action, as well as applicable state and local laws and regulations.

The FCRA defines the term “employment purposes” as evaluating a consumer for “employment, promotion, reassignment or retention as an employee.” It is important to note that the FTC interprets the ending phrase “as an employee” in the definition of “employment purposes” as modifying only “retention,” and not the words “employment, promotion, reassignment” preceding it.

Equity v. Non-Equity Partners and the FCRA

Equity partners typically share profits and losses, contribute capital, and participate in governance. Non‑equity partners, by contrast, often receive fixed compensation, do not bear profit‑and‑loss risk, and remain subject to the firm’s control. In practice, non‑equity partners frequently resemble senior employees. Distinctions can also be made between candidates for partner who are recruited from outside the firm and associates being evaluated for promotion to partner.

Law firms should consider a hybrid compliance model that establishes separate screening policies for partner candidates recruited from outside the firm, for existing equity partners, and for candidates with an existing employment relationship with the firm, such as associates or non-equity partners. Background checks for associates and non‑equity partners should generally be treated as subject to the FCRA’s employment‑purpose requirements.

For outside partner candidates and equity partners, firms may instead rely on a non‑employment permissible purpose under the FCRA: “the written instructions of the consumer.”

Key Takeaways

  • Titles do not control—structure and control do
  • Default to FCRA employment purpose compliance for non‑equity partners
  • Apply FCRA employment purpose rules to internal promotions
  • Ensure screening vendors and internal teams align on the permissible purpose

 

Disclaimer: This communication is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The summary provided in this alert does not, and cannot, cover in detail what employers need to know about the amendments to the Philadelphia Fair Chance Law or how to incorporate its requirements into their hiring process. No recipient should act or refrain from acting based on any information provided here without advice from a qualified attorney licensed in the applicable jurisdiction.

April 13th, 2026|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , , |

Workplace Investigations and the FCRA

Before a background check can be conducted on an applicant or employee, the FCRA requires that an employer (our client) provide a written disclosure form and obtain a signed authorization from the applicant or employee. While these requirements will apply to nearly all background checks, there are two situations in which the FCRA permits an employer to dispense with the disclosure and authorization requirements — an investigation of (1) suspected misconduct relating to employment or (2) compliance with federal, state, or local laws and regulations, the rules of a self-regulatory organization, or any preexisting written policies of the employer.

This alleviates the concern that providing the subject with advance disclosure of the investigation and obtaining the subject’s authorization to conduct the investigation would greatly hamper the investigation itself.

However, the FCRA does impose an obligation on the employer if adverse action, such as termination or suspension, is taken against the employee because of the investigation. In those situations, the FCRA requires the employer to provide the employee with a summary of the nature and substance of the investigation. Although the FCRA does not specify the time period within which the employer must provide the summary, it seems reasonable to provide it just after the adverse action is taken.

The FCRA does not require the employer to provide the employee with a copy of any report prepared for the investigation, nor does the FCRA require the employer to disclose in the summary the sources of the information obtained in the investigation. If co-workers, vendors, customers, or other individuals provided damaging information about the employee, their identities would not need to be disclosed to the employee in the FCRA summary.

August 11th, 2022|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , |

2021 UPDATE OF FCRA LITIGATION AND THE EFFECT ON EMPLOYMENT BACKGROUND SCREENING

Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) lawsuits continue to rise with the number of complaints filed in federal courts showing a +5.3% increase in 2020 over 2019[1]. This continues a trend for FCRA litigation as it has consistently shown year-over-year growth since 2010. An issue that garners much attention in FCRA litigation is whether an employer’s disclosure and authorization forms violate the FCRA. Two federal appellate decisions address this issue and provide important guidance for employers on how to draft FCRA disclosure and authorization forms.

FCRA Disclosure and Authorization Forms

Employers that want to obtain a background check report about a job applicant or current employee must comply with the FCRA and provide to the individual a standalone document with a clear and conspicuous disclosure of the employer’s intention to do so, and obtain the individual’s authorization. By way of background, the principal appellate opinion on disclosure and authorization forms is the Ninth Circuit’s Gilberg v. California Check Cashing Stores, LLC, No. No. 17-16263 (January 2019). The Gilberg opinion made clear that any extraneous information in an FCRA disclosure form violates the FCRA’s requirement that the disclosure must be “in a document that consists solely of the disclosure” (the standalone requirement). The employer in Gilberg was found to have violated the standalone requirement by:

  1. Combining the authorization and disclosure into one document; and
  2. Including several state-related disclosures in the form.

Two important cases from 2020 that further addressed the requirements and limitations for the content of an FCRA disclosure form were issued by the Ninth Circuit in Walker v. Fred Meyer, Inc., No. 18-35592 (March 20, 2020) and Luna v. Hansen & Adkins Transport, Inc., No. 18-55804, (April 24, 2020).

In Walker v. Fred Meyer, the court indicated that background check disclosures may contain some concise explanatory language, but there is a limit to what is explanatory and what is unlawfully extraneous. Among other allegations, the plaintiff in Walker claimed that the FCRA disclosure violated the standalone requirement because, in addition to mentioning consumer reports, it also mentioned investigative consumer reports (a type of consumer report). The Ninth Circuit rejected this claim and ruled that mentioning investigative background checks in the disclosure does not violate the FCRA’s standalone requirement because investigative consumer reports are a subcategory or specific type of consumer report and as long as the investigative background check disclosures are limited to (1) disclosing that such reports may be obtained for employment purposes and (2) providing a very brief description of what that means.

The Ninth Circuit reviewed the employer’s disclosure in Walker in detail, which consisted of five paragraphs, and held that the first three paragraphs did not violate the standalone requirement, but that the last two paragraphs did because they may pull the individual’s attention away from their privacy rights protected by the FCRA. Here are the offending paragraphs in their entirety:

“You may inspect GIS’s files about you (in person, by mail, or by phone) by providing identification to GIS. If you do, GIS will provide you help to understand the files, including communication with trained personnel and an explanation of any codes. Another person may accompany you by providing identification.”

“If GIS obtains any information by interview, you have the right to obtain a complete and accurate disclosure of the scope and nature of the investigation performed.”

The plaintiff in Walker also claimed that the language of the employer’s authorization form, which was in a separate document was confusing and underscored the confusing and distracting nature of disclosure form, thus violating the FCRA’s standalone requirement. The Ninth Circuit rejected this argument because it found that the authorization form is not relevant to the FCRA disclosure form’s standalone requirement where the authorization is not included in the disclosure and is in a separate authorization form.

In Luna v. Hansen, the plaintiff claimed that the FCRA’s physical standalone requirement for hard-copy forms was a temporal one, i.e., the disclosure form should be presented to the individual separate from all other employment-related forms. The plaintiff in Luna had received one packet containing all forms. The Ninth Circuit rejected this argument and held that as long as the background check disclosure itself is in a standalone form, it can be presented with and at the same time as other employment documents.

Key Takeaways

Given the steady uptick in FCRA litigation, it is advisable for employers to review their FCRA disclosure and authorization forms on at least a yearly basis, or whenever important appellate opinions are issued, to ensure compliance with the FCRA. The attached forms from the Gilberg and Walker opinions provide clear examples of what to avoid in FCRA disclosure forms. In general, the guidance provided in the above-referenced opinions indicate that:

  • background check disclosure forms may contain some concise explanatory language, but there is a limit to what is explanatory and what is unlawfully extraneous;
  • background check disclosure forms may be presented at the same time as other materials, including application materials, as long as the background check disclosures are on a separate form; and
  • language in a separate authorization form has no impact on the disclosure form’s compliance with the FCRA standalone requirement.

[1] WebRecon Stats for Dec 2020 and Year in Review

Disclaimer: This communication is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No recipient should act, or refrain from acting, based on any information provided here without advice from a qualified attorney licensed in the applicable jurisdiction.

March 23rd, 2021|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , |

Pre-Employment Screening during the Pandemic

It is a standard practice for employers to run background checks on potential new hires. Such checks help employers protect their company by learning about the trustworthiness of the candidate through their financial, criminal, and driving records and education and employment verifications. But the pandemic has affected the operations of many institutions worldwide. From court closures to remote college campuses, it may be more difficult for the screening provider to check a criminal record or verify an educational background. Nonetheless, the possibility of delay should not cause employers to lower the standards of their screening policies.

The most important reason why an employer should not temporarily waive certain parts of a background check is because it may make it harder to justify its necessity in the future. For example, say a court is closed and is unable to provide information on candidates’ criminal history. Because of this, an employer who is anxious to add the new hire to the frontline chooses to waive the criminal check requirement. Well, when a court begins to provide legal information again and an employer decides to reinstate the criminal check requirement, the employer could face compliance issues.

Under current anti-discrimination laws, namely Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers must demonstrate that its hiring practices are “job related” and “consistent with business necessity.” But if an employer chooses to forgo the criminal checks during the pandemic and wishes to reinstate them later, they may be violating this law. Since the criminal check was once suspended, one could argue that the practice was not job related or that it was not a business necessity. Furthermore, streamlining the employment screening process by waiving certain aspects could lead an employer to overlook valuable insight into a candidate’s character. Therefore, while a shorter background check program during the pandemic could bring short-term benefits, it runs significant long-term risks.

So, what are your options?

We have outlined up two possible avenues available to employers during these times.

Hire now (but reserve the right to run future background checks)

If a company is in a position in which new hires are urgently needed, they may hire the candidates based on the information available to them at the time of the background check and reserve the right to conduct additional background checks post-hire, once information providers resume to normal operations. But if an employer takes this route, they must clearly communicate with both their background check provider and the new hire.

They should work with the background check provider to take note of those candidates whose checks are not yet completed so that the provider can easily revisit the report in the future. Employers should also make it clear in an employee’s offer letter that the offer of employment is contingent upon the successful completion of a background check that may occur at a later date.

Delay the hire

For employers who are required by law to complete background checks prior to a new hire’s start date, they may have to delay the worker’s start date. But whether a background check provider can access the required information for an employment screen depends on the location of the various sources of information, from the courthouses to the educational institutions.

All in all, although background checks may take longer during the pandemic, they are, especially now, critical to manage your risk. With the rising number of job seekers and the remote workforce, companies must do what they can to ensure that they are hiring qualified professionals who will be valuable additions to the company.

September 10th, 2020|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , |

Q1 2020: UPDATE OF LAWS AFFECTING EMPLOYMENT BACKGROUND SCREENING

As the year and a new decade unfold, we bring you this update on ban-the-box legislation and laws that restrict credit report usage in employment decisions. And no update would be complete without a reminder about a standard-setting federal appellate opinion from 2019 interpreting the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) disclosure requirement for an employment background check.

Let’s start with a reminder

In January 2019, the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Gilberg v. California Check Cashing Stores, LLC made clear that any extraneous information in an FCRA disclosure form regarding an employment background check — even if the information is related to state-mandated expansions of consumer rights — violates the FCRA’s requirement that the disclosure must be “in a document that consists solely of the disclosure.

Even seemingly innocuous content, such as asking for an acknowledgment that the candidate received the FCRA summary of rights or including a statement that hiring decisions are based on legitimate non-discriminatory reasons may run afoul of the FCRA. And any state and local notices regarding the background check must be provided in separate documents, as applicable to each candidate.

Experts believe that the number of class-action lawsuits brought under the FCRA for technical errors will continue to increase. But there is an easy way to comply:

Present the disclosure to the candidate in a separate, standalone, conspicuous document. Make it clear and simple. Keep it short.

Ban-the-box laws continue to proliferate

“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 – continue to proliferate. Currently, 14 states (California; Colorado; Connecticut; Hawaii; Illinois; Maryland (effective February 29, 2020); Massachusetts; Minnesota; New Jersey; New Mexico; Oregon; Rhode Island; Vermont and Washington) and 22 local jurisdictions (Austin, TX ; Baltimore, MD; Buffalo, NY; Chicago, IL; Cook County, IL; Columbia, MO; District of Columbia; Grand Rapids, MI; Kansas City, MO; Los Angeles, CA; Montgomery County, MD; New York City, NY;  Philadelphia, PA; Portland, OR; Prince George’s County, MD; Rochester, NY; Saint Louis, MO (effective January 1, 2021); San Francisco, CA; Seattle, WA; Spokane, WA; Waterloo, IA (effective July 1, 2020 but lawsuit filed to strike down the ordinance); and Westchester County, NY) have such laws in place for private employers.

Be mindful of credit restrictions

Less popular than state and local legislatures on ban-the-box and prohibitions on salary history inquiries, credit check restrictions remain an important consideration for employers. Ten states California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington – as well as Chicago, District of Columbia, New York City, and Philadelphia all place restrictions on employers’ use of credit reports with exceptions for the use of such checks when required by law or the responsibilities of the position.      

Arguably, the most imposing local credit report law to date continues to be the New York City’s Human Rights amendment that went into effect on May 6, 2015, and made requesting and using consumer credit history for hiring and other employment purposes, with certain exceptions, an unlawful discriminatory practice. The law provides that a “consumer credit report” includes “any written or other communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency that bears on a consumer’s creditworthiness, credit standing, credit capacity or credit history.”Many legal experts hold that the broad scope of this definition not only prohibits obtaining a consumer credit report but also searches of liens, judgments, bankruptcies, and financially-related lawsuits if there is no exemption. There is no case law on this matter. 

On the national level, the U.S. House of Representatives on January 29, 2020, passed legislation that prohibits employers from using credit reports for employment decisions, except when required by law or for a national security clearance. The bill also prohibits asking questions about applicants’ financial past during job interviews or including questions about credit history on job applications. The U.S. Senate, however, is not expected to introduce the legislation.

March 6th, 2020|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , , |

Mid-Year Update on Employment Background Screening Legislation

“BAN-THE-BOX”

List of jurisdictions is growing

“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 list of localities that have enacted such legislation is growing fast and now includes Austin, Baltimore, Buffalo, Chicago, Columbia – MO, Los Angeles (enforcement started July 1, 2017), Montgomery County – MD, New York City, Philadelphia, Portland, Prince George’s County – MD, Rochester, San Francisco, and Seattle, and ten states (Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont (effective July 1, 2017)).

Although not labeled as “ban-the-box,” California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing regulations (the “Regs”) that went into effect July 1, 2017 impose certain similar requirements when employers consider criminal history information in employment decisions. As reported in our previous blog, the Regs are substantially based on the enforcement guidance issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in April 2012, and prohibit employers from using a candidate’s criminal history in personnel decisions if such information will have an adverse impact on individuals that are in a legally protected class.

Amended rules for New York City’s “ban-the-box” take effect August 5, 2017

Nearly two years after the enactment of New York City’s Fair Chance Act (FCA), and without much fanfare, the City’s Commission on Human Rights published its amended rules that  establish certain definitions and procedures, and clarify the comprehensive requirements of the FCA when using criminal history in employment decisions, and considering applicants for licenses, registrations, and permits.

CREDIT CHECK RESTRICTIONS

Eleven states (California – AB 22; Colorado – The Employment Opportunity Act; Connecticut  – SB 361; District of Columbia – Fair Credit in Employment Amendment Act, 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 localities  (New York City – Stop Credit Discrimination in Employment Act, and Philadelphia – Bill No. 160072), have enacted laws that generally prohibit private employers from checking a candidate’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, which among their provisions include a ban on inquiries about a candidate’s wages, are gaining momentum nationwide. The following jurisdictions have enacted such laws and many more are considering similar measures: Delaware – HS1 (effective December 14, 2017); Massachusetts – Pay Equity Act (effective July 1, 2018); New York City – Intro 1253 (effective October 31, 2017); Oregon HB 2005 (effective December 1, 2019); Philadelphia – Fair Practices Ordinance: Protections Against Unlawful Discrimination (set to go into effect May 23, 2017 but now facing a legal challenge); Puerto Rico – Equal Pay Act (effective March 8, 2017); and San Francisco – Parity in Pay Ordinance (effective July 1, 2018).

Pending before California’s Senate is AB 168 that would prohibit employers from seeking an applicant’s salary history and impose significant penalties for violations. Notably, California already has a pay equity law, AB 1676, and although the law does not ban salary history inquiries, it does prohibit employers from using a candidate’s prior wages as the sole basis to justify a pay disparity.

WORK AUTHORIZATION VERIFICATIONS

Revised Form I-9

The USCIS released a revised version of Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification on July 17, 2017. Employers can use this revised version or continue using Form I-9 with a revision date of “11/14/16 N” through September 17, 2017. Beginning September 18, 2017, however, employers must use the new form (with the revision date of “07/17/17 N”).

Reminder to California employers

California’s  AB 1065 that went into effect January 1, 2017 makes it unlawful for employers to:

  1. request additional or different documents than those required under federal law to verify that an individual is not an unauthorized immigrant;
  2. refuse to accept documents provided by the applicant that reasonably appear to be genuine;
  3. refuse to honor documents or work authorization based on specific status or term that accompanies the authorization to work; and
  4. attempt to re-investigate or re-verify a candidate’s authorization to work using an unfair immigration-related practice.
August 4th, 2017|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , , , , , , |

Additional Guidance and Forms Issued for City of Los Angeles’ Fair Chance Initiative for Hiring Ordinance

As reported in our previous alert, effective January 22, 2017, the Fair Chance Initiative for Hiring (“LAFCIH”) ordinance prohibits employers (with 10 or more employees) from inquiring about an applicant’s criminal history until a conditional job offer has been extended and imposes significant compliance obligations. The Department of Public Works Bureau of Contract Administration (the “BCA” or the “Department”), which bears administrative responsibilities for the LAFCIH, in addition to its rules and regulations published In February, has now provided forms and further guidance to help covered employers (and city contractors/subcontractors) meet their compliance requirements.

The forms and guidance include the following:

It is recommended that all covered employers and city contractors/subcontractors review the materials provided by the BCA.  Penalties and fines for violations of the LAFCIH will be imposed starting July 1, 2017.

February 10th, 2017|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , , , |
© 2012- SCHERZER INTERNATIONAL | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Go to Top