Google Archives

Politics in Employment Screening

As political expression becomes increasingly visible online, employers face a difficult question: Does political activism have a place in personnel decisions? While much of this information is publicly accessible, its use in hiring is governed by a complex web of federal, state, and local laws. Employers must carefully distinguish between protected political expression, criminal conduct, and in limited circumstances where political contributions may create regulatory compliance obligations.

Screening for Cultural Fit Based on Politics

Using political views or lawful participation to assess a cultural fit is a risky strategy. While federal law does not explicitly protect political affiliation for private-sector employees, many states (such as California, New York, and Colorado) and local jurisdictions do. Even in “at-will” states without specific political protections, using political beliefs as a filter can inadvertently create a discrimination claim. This occurs if political views correlate with protected characteristics like race, religion, or national origin.

Lawful Political Activity vs. Criminal Conduct

Peaceful rallies, advocacy, volunteering, and public expression are generally protected by state-level “off-duty conduct” laws. If an individual engages in rioting, vandalism, assault, or trespassing for example, an employer may consider the criminal offense. The focus must remain on the illegal act, regardless of whether it was motivated by a political cause. When evaluating such criminal history, employers must still adhere to “Fair Chance” or “Ban-the-Box” laws, which dictate when and how employers can ask about a candidate’s record.

When Political Donations Matter

In the financial sector, political screening is not just a choice—it is often a regulatory requirement. Under SEC Rule 206(4)-5, certain political contributions by “covered associates” can trigger a two-year ban on the firm receiving compensation from government clients. To remain compliant, firms may conduct political contribution reviews for relevant roles. These reviews typically cover the previous two years (or six months for certain new associates). This screening must be used strictly for regulatory compliance, not to vet a candidate’s personal ideology.

Bottom Line

Political screening can be a legal minefield. When handled with precision, background screening supports regulatory obligations; when handled poorly, it invites discrimination lawsuits.

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.

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.