Massachusetts is a New England state in the northeastern United States, known for its historic role in the nation’s founding, its world‑class universities, and its diverse coastal‑to‑mountain geography. It is officially the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and was one of the original 13 states.
Massachusetts is bordered by Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and the Atlantic Ocean. Its capital and largest city is Boston, the state’s cultural and economic center.
Many people assume that once a bankruptcy drops off their credit report, it disappears everywhere.
Not true. And this difference matters, especially for employers and job seekers.
Credit Reports Follow Standard FCRA Time Limits
Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), national consumer reporting agencies (TransUnion, Experian, Equifax) must remove bankruptcies after specific time periods:
Employment Background Checks Work Differently
Employment screening companies are also consumer reporting agencies under the FCRA, but they don’t rely solely on credit bureaus. They frequently pull records directly from the courthouse, which may contain older bankruptcy filings long after the credit bureaus deleted them.
Under the FCRA’s $75,000 salary exception, employment background check companies may report adverse information with no time limit. So if a bankruptcy exists in public court records, it may still appear on an employment background check even though it no longer appears on a credit report.
State Reporting Laws Add Another Layer
Several states have their own rules on how long bankruptcy records may be reported in employment background checks–specifically California, Colorado, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Texas, and Washington. California, for example, prohibits reporting a bankruptcy that is more than 10 years old measured from the date of the relief order, unless a narrow exception applies.
Bottom Line
A bankruptcy “dropping off” your credit report does not guarantee it disappears from employment background checks. Different rules, different timelines.
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.
The growing number of jurisdictions permitting medical marijuana is putting employers in a tough position. One the one hand, marijuana remains illegal under federal law and a workforce under the influence isn’t much of a workforce at all. On the other hand, 23 states and the District of Columbia now permit the use of marijuana for regulated medical purposes and some state laws include anti-discrimination provisions prohibiting employers from taking action against employees based on their status as a registered medical marijuana user.
A first-of-its-kind lawsuit demonstrates the conundrum. In December, the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit in a Rhode Island state court on behalf of an individual who allegedly was denied an internship after she disclosed that she lawfully carried a medical marijuana card for severe migraines.
According to the complaint, the company told the applicant that she had been rejected because of her status as a cardholder, and despite promises not to bring medical marijuana on the premises or come to work under the influence, the applicant was denied the position.
The lawsuit charges that the company violated Rhode Island’s medical marijuana law which prohibits schools, employers, and landlords from refusing “to enroll, employ, or lease to, or otherwise penalize, a person solely for his or her status as a cardholder.” The complaint – which also includes allegations of disability discrimination under state law – seeks compensatory and punitive damages.
Employers in states permitting medical marijuana would be well-advised to review their relevant law when considering marijuana use or marijuana-related criminal records in employment decisions. While Rhode Island is not alone in including an anti-discrimination requirement in its law, joined by Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, and New York, other states – including California, Massachusetts, and New York – are clear that employers have no obligation to accommodate an employee’s medical marijuana use or permit them to work under the influence.
Read the complaint.
As of November 4, 2010, Massachusetts employers are prohibited from asking about criminal records on the initial job application, except for positions for which a federal or state law, regulation or accreditation disqualifies an applicant based on a conviction, or if the employer is mandated by a federal or state law or regulation not to employ
individuals who have been convicted of a crime.
The new law also has two provisions that will become effective February 6, 2012. Under the first provision, an employer in possession of criminal record information must disclose that information to the applicant, prior to asking about it. And similar to the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, if an employer decides not to hire an
applicant in whole or in part because of the criminal record, the employer must provide the applicant with a copy of the record.
The second provision requires employers who conduct five or more criminal background investigations annually to implement and maintain a written criminal record information policy. The policy, at minimum, must specify procedures for (1) notifying applicants of the potential for an adverse decision based on the criminal record, (2) providing
a copy of the criminal record and the written policy to applicants, and (3) dispensing information to applicants about the process for correcting errors on their criminal record.
The law imposes penalties (including imprisonment for up to one year or a fine of up to $5,000 for an individual and $50,000 for a company) for those who request or require an applicant to provide a copy of his/her criminal record except under conditions authorized by law, and prohibits harassment of the subject of the criminal record (punishable by imprisonment of up to one year, or a fine of not more than $5,000.)
