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.

New Guidance Regarding City of Los Angeles’ Fair Chance Initiative for Hiring Ordinance

 

 

What is this about:

 As reported in our previous alert, effective January 22, 2017, the Fair Chance Initiative for Hiring (“LAFCIH”) ordinance prohibits employers 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, which bears administrative responsibilities for the LAFCIH, in addition to its rules and regulations (the “Regs”) to guide covered employers (and city contractors/subcontractors) in meeting compliance requirements published last month, has now posted an “individualized assessment and reassessment form.” It is unclear whether the Department expects employers to use this form as provided or whether modifications are permitted. Certain other items in the Regs also remain unclear, and the Department has yet to issue anticipated further guidance.
 

Notable amplifications and clarifications:
  1. “Applicant” means an individual who submits an application or other documentation for employment to an employer regardless of location.
  2. “Employee” means any individual who performs at least two hours of work on average each week within the geographic boundaries of the City for an employer. Average week is determined by the last four complete weeks before the position is advertised
  3. An individual who lives in the City and performs work for an employer from home, including telecommuting, is an employee.
  4. An individual who works from a home that is outside of the City is not an employee even if he/she works for a Los Angeles-based company, unless the individual also works at least two hours on average per week within the geographic boundaries of the City.
  5. The LAFCIH applies to employees regardless of an employer’s designation of an employee as an independent contractor, and labeling a worker as an independent contractor is not conclusive for the purpose of the LAFCIH.
 

Criminal history:

 According to the Regs,

“A conviction shall include a plea, verdict, or finding of guilt regardless of whether sentence is imposed by the court. In the State of California, an employer is prohibited from asking about any arrest information, unless it results in a conviction, and otherwise specified.”

Note: the definition above cites California Labor Code §432.7(a)(1). The first sentence is correct; however, the second sentence is not, as that statute expressly allows inquiries about pending cases,stating that “nothing

[in this section] shall prevent an employer from asking… about an arrest for which the employee or applicant is out on bail or on his or her own recognizance pending trial.”

Nevertheless, the Regs, in a section titled “Employer Assessment of Criminal History,” go on to state that “arrests cannot be considered in employment decisions.”
 

Other guidance items:

 The Regs amplify other definitions and aim to explain the various employer requirements. This includes, but is not limited to: the application and interview procedure, assessment of criminal history, the “Fair Chance” process, notice and posting, record-keeping, enforcement and exceptions.

See above the above post for links regarding this new guidance.

February 9th, 2017|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , , , |

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:

  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
  4. 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.

January 2nd, 2017|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , , , , , |

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.

November 5th, 2015|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , |

EEOC loses – again – in challenge to background checks

In the latest blow to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (the “EEOC”) attempts to regulate employers’ use of background checks, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out a case in a scathing opinion that expressed disappointment in the agency’s litigation conduct.

The controversy began in April 2012, when the EEOC released guidance on the issue of criminal background checks for employers. The “Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964” emphasized that while the use of criminal history does not violate the statute per se, an employer may run afoul of the law if the checks result in systemic discrimination based on a protected category like race, color, national origin, religion, or sex.

As an alternative, the agency suggested employers strive to perform individualized assessments of prospective employees, and consider factors such as the nature of the crime and its relation to the potential job, as well as the individual’s rehabilitation efforts and the length of time that has passed since the conviction.

The EEOC then followed up with multiple lawsuits alleging that certain employers engaged in the discriminatory use of background checks, disproportionately screening out African-American workers in cases filed against BMW Manufacturing in South Carolina, Dollar General in Illinois, Kaplan Higher Education Company in Ohio, and Freeman Company in Maryland.

To date, all of the lawsuits have been dismissed and the agency has faced criticism about its efforts to pursue such cases from both industry and lawmakers. The most recent critic: the Fourth Circuit.

In the agency’s case against Freeman Company, the EEOC alleged the company’s use of criminal background checks for all applicants and credit checks for “credit sensitive” positions had an unlawful disparate impact on black and male job applicants. To support its case, the agency produced expert reports by an industrial/organizational psychologist. But the federal district court granted summary judgment for Freeman, finding the psychologist’s reports “rife with analytical errors” and “completely unreliable.”

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the ruling, identifying “an alarming number of errors and analytical fallacies” in the reports, “making it impossible to rely on any of his conclusions.” Freeman provided complete background screening logs for thousands of applicants to the EEOC but the psychologist “cherry-picked” data, the court said, omitting information from half of the company’s branch offices while purporting to analyze all the background checks, and further failed to utilize an appropriate sample size, selecting the vast majority of data to focus on before October 14, 2008.

Although the relevant time period extended to August 31, 2011 and Freeman conducted over 1,500 criminal checks and more than 300 credit reviews between October 14, 2008 and August 31, 2011, the psychologist used data from only 19 applicants during that time, just one of whom passed the check.

A “mind-boggling number of errors and unexplained discrepancies” existed in the psychologist’s database, the panel added, rejecting the EEOC’s argument that the mistakes originated in Freeman’s data. The psychologist introduced the errors, the court said, and further managed to introduce fresh errors when he tried to supplement his original reports with corrections.

“The sheer number of mistakes and omissions in the analysis renders it “outside the range where experts might reasonably differ,” the three-judge panel wrote. One of the panelists added a concurring opinion expressing concern with the “EEOC’s disappointing litigation conduct” and continued efforts to defend the psychologist’s work despite other courts reaching similar conclusions about his reports.

“The Commission’s conduct in this case suggets that its exercise of vigilance has been lacking,” according to the concurring opinion. “It would serve the agency well in the future to reconsider how it might better discharge the responsibilities delegated to it or face consquences for failing to do so.”

With public criticism, zero litigation victories, and a counterargument from one defendant that its background check procedures are the same as those conducted by the agency itself, the Fourth Circuit’s decision does not bode well for the future of EEOC challenges to background checks. That said, employers should still be cautious and utilize background reports in a non-discriminatory manner.

Read the EEOC guidance.

Read the opinion in EEOC v. Freeman.

May 8th, 2015|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: , , |

Minnesota becomes the latest state to restrict employment criminal checks

On May 13, 2012, Minnesota became the latest state to restrict criminal background checks for employment purposes with its Criminal Background Check Act  (S.F. No. 523). Under the new law, which will go into effect on January 1, 2014, public and private employers may not inquire about, consider or require disclosure of an applicant’s criminal history until after the applicant has been granted an interview or before a conditional offer of employment is made. Since 2009, Minnesota law prohibited only public employers from asking about criminal records on job applications.

According to a report from the National Employment Law Project (the “NELP”) dated in April 2013, six states and 50 localities have adopted “Ban the Box” legislation.  And pending before Congress is the federal HR 6220 or “Ban the Box Act” introduced last July by Representative Hansen Clarke (D-MI-13) 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.

May 31st, 2013|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , , |

Congress questions legality of “The Work Number” operated by Equifax

Seven members of Congress wrote a letter last month to Equifax asking for more information about its employment verification subsidiary, The Work Number, which according to a statement made by Jackie Speier (D-California), “appears to have operated under the radar, with little public awareness of the vast trove of

[payroll and other] sensitive data it was gathering.”  Speier asserted that “Equifax needs to explain exactly how it is using this data, and provide evidence that The Work Number does not pose a threat to the privacy of 190 million Americans.”

While companies say that they sign up with The Work Number because it gives them a convenient way to outsource employment verifications, the seven members of Congress are disturbed by the fact that “… this massive database appears to generate revenue using consumers’ sensitive personal information for profit.”

March 29th, 2013|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , |

No shortcuts to assuring maximum possible accuracy under the FCRA

When Congress formulated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) more than 30 years ago, it noted that the law was enacted in order to protect consumers against “the trend toward…the establishment of all sorts of computerized data banks

[that placed a consumer] in great danger of having his life and character reduced to impersonal ‘blips’ and key punch holes in a stolid and unthinking machine which can literally ruin his reputation without cause [116 Cong. Rec. 36570].” This intent has been clearly supported by the amendments that followed allowing greater and more effective protection. But despite the leaps and bounds in legislation, much controversy still exists about the level of protection that this law provides to consumers.  And confusion abounds about the compliance requirements for consumer reporting agencies (“CRAs”) on whom the FCRA places “grave” compliance obligations. “There is a need to insure that consumer reporting agencies exercise their ‘grave’ responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the consumer’s right to privacy [15 U.S.C. § 1681(a)(4) (2006)].”

The FCRA mandates that “[w]henever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates [15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b)].” So what does this mean? Courts have taken two positions in interpreting the language of this section. The “consumer-friendly” version holds CRAs liable for reports that are technically accurate, but may be misleading or incomplete. (Koropoulos v. Credit Bureau, Inc., 734 F.2d 37, 40; D.C. Cir. 1984: “Congress did not limit the Act’s mandate to reasonable procedures to assure only technical accuracy; to the contrary, the Act requires reasonable procedures to assure maximum accuracy.”) The “business friendly” interpretation requires only technical accuracy in the CRA’s reporting.  [Todd v. Associated Credit Bureau Servs., Inc., 451 F. Supp. 447, 449 (E.D. Pa. 1977)].

While this case law is helpful in understanding the CRA’s liability under the statute, there is no doubt that a comprehensive guidance on the methodology to assure maximum accuracy is still much needed especially in view of the proliferation of the so-called “national databases” in the recent years. But despite the lack of clear guidance, a reputable CRA knows that “to assure” means “to earnestly inform or tell positively; state with confidence.” And reporting a record that was identified by name only or relying solely on private database record information in an employment background check does not pass the reasonable procedures test by any standard.

In an Internet marketplace that touts instant results, a CRA’s practice of sending searchers to the courthouse, pulling dozens of cases, and reviewing legal documents to ascertain correct subject identification and record information may be counterintuitive for many employers. And it takes time and money to assure the most accurate and up-to-date results. On the other hand, in a world of over a million people, is a quick and cheap database background search of any real value?

January 7th, 2013|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , |

Risk-based approach to employment screening rates high on value chain

In today’s world just about every company knows that an effective employment screening program is invaluable for hiring qualified individuals, reducing turnover, deterring fraud and other criminal actions, and avoiding or mitigating litigation.

Recognizing that a “bad” hire is a threat to the bottom line, many companies, from investment bankers to law firms, are taking a risk-focused approach to background investigations and deciding what is appropriate or how much should be done to ensure organizational success. For example, obtaining a credit report or checking civil records for an entry-level applicant with low risk responsibilities may be of limited use, while reviewing such record histories for someone who will handle money or have access to sensitive information may be imperative in assessing his/her suitability for a position of trust.

Best practices in both the government and in the private sector indicate that a risk designation should be determined for every position, based on its description of duties and responsibilities. The risk grade should be commensurate with the employee’s assigned trust level, financial accountability, access to sensitive and confidential information and critical data systems, autonomy, discretionary authority, and potential opportunity for misconduct.

To be effective and non-discriminatory, employment screening policies need to specify a uniform set of background investigation elements for all position/assignment levels, including new hires, temporary workers, interns, transferred and promoted employees, contractors and volunteers.

SI has a full suite of employment background investigation products. Please visit our website at https://www.scherzer.com/ to learn more or order an investigation.

September 13th, 2011|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , |

Beware of background investigation companies that offer FBI NCIC checks

All you need to do is type in a few key words into Google and headlines pop up promising easy access to FBI criminal records. But when you click on the link, it goes nowhere or to a background screening company’s Web site which then states that it searches public records only, and makes no further mention of the teasing lead.

And except for a few non-government entities, such ones performing authorized criminal justice functions under contract with law enforcement agencies, entities whose purpose is to provide information to authorized agencies to facilitate the apprehension of fugitives or locate missing persons and stolen property, or similar objectives, and federally chartered banking institutions, their bank subsidiaries and direct affiliates, the records are off-limits to the public. Of course, an individual can request his/her own record, typically for a personal review, to challenge the information on file, to meet a requirement for adopting a child in the U.S. or internationally, to satisfy a mandate to live, work, or travel in a foreign country, or to obtain certain professional licenses.

So exactly what is the FBI’s National Crime Information Center? The NCIC, as it is commonly known, is the United States’ central database for tracking crime related information. Maintained by the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division, the NCIC is interlinked with similar systems held by each state. Data is received from federal, state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies, along with railroad police, and non-law enforcement agencies, such as state and federal motor vehicle registration and licensing authorities.

The NCIC was launched January 27, 1967 with five files and 356,784 records. By the end of 2009, it amassed more than 15 million active records in 19 files, separated into seven property files containing records of stolen articles, boats, guns, license plates, parts, securities, and vehicles, and 12 person-related files containing information in connection with supervised releases, national sex offender registry, foreign fugitives, immigration violators, missing persons, protection orders, unidentified persons, U.S. Secret Service protective list, gangs, known or suspected terrorists, wanted persons, and identity theft. Also a part of the system is the Interstate Identification Index, which provides images that can be associated with NCIC records to help identify people and property items.

The database is not infallible. Its many critics say that the underfunded system is limited in content, contains errors and has outdated information. But the black market for NCIC records is flourishing, despite risks of prison time and financial penalties. While in most instances the motivation for misuse is monetary gain, in an extreme example of personal incentive, a former law enforcement officer in Arizona obtained NCIC information from three other officers and used it to track down and murder his girlfriend.

January 26th, 2011|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , |
Go to Top