If your background check forms include too much information about rights under state law, or even grammatical errors, you might be in trouble according to the Ninth Circuit. In Gilberg v. California Check Cashing Stores, the appeals court recently ruled against an employer for using background check disclosure forms that violate both the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), and California’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA).
Employers failing to strictly comply with FCRA requirements in conducting background checks continue to face expensive consequences. On November 16, 2018, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California approved a $1.2 million settlement of a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the FCRA filed against the popular pet supplies chain Petco.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) issued a new “A Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act” (“FCRA”) (“Summary of Rights”) form on September 12, 2018. This form replaces the previous version issued on November 12, 2012, and is expected to be implemented by employers on September 21, 2018.
Criminal Background Inquiries in the Hiring Process:
Class Action Litigation and “Ban the Box” Trends in 2018
Wednesday, August 8, 2018
1:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. ET
Robert T. Quackenboss
Partner, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Associate, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
San Francisco, CA
A magistrate judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon recently made findings and recommendations to dismiss a purported class action against Kroger subsidiary Fred Meyer. The suit alleges that the retailer’s background check process for prospective employees violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act by both failing to properly disclose that a report will be run, and failing to comply with the statute’s procedural requirements before taking adverse action against an applicant.
In a time when workplace violence seems to be on the rise, many companies have adopted a strict no tolerance policy even for conduct outside the workplace. In California, however, employers need to be cognizant of the protections afforded individuals that may make such terminations riskier than the company may expect. One employer got just such a reminder last week when a California jury returned an $18M verdict against it for terminating an employee after he was arrested for threatening his girlfriend outside of the workplace.
On April 3, 2018, San Francisco amended its Fair Chance Ordinance, the city and county’s so-called “ban-the-box” legislation that limits how private employers can use an applicant’s criminal history in employment decisions. The amendments, which take effect on October 1, 2018, expand the scope and penalties of the San Francisco ordinance and add to the growing framework of ban-the-box legislation across California. The complete text of the amendment can be found here.
In June, new laws will go into effect that restrict employers’ ability to request and use criminal history information about applicants in three jurisdictions: Kansas City, Missouri; the State of Washington; and the city of Spokane, Washington.
Date: Thursday, November 16, 2017
Time: 12:00 PM to 1:00 PM PST
Please join Hunton & Williams LLP for a complimentary webinar that will address current concerns faced by employers in California. This program, co-sponsored by Welch Consulting, will examine the following issues:
- Fair Pay issues
- Recent PAGA concerns
- “Ban the Box” and background checks
- Sick leave
- Changing local and regional ordinances
- Sexual harassment
We will also discuss ways to address potential risks proactively, including the use of statistical analyses to avoid future litigation.
We hope you can join us for what should be a very interesting and educational program.
Register by clicking here.
Questions? Contact Visalaya Hirunpidok at email@example.com or 213.532.2003.
The New York City Commission on Human Rights recently amended its rules to establish certain definitions and procedures applying the Fair Chance Act. The Act makes it unlawful to discriminate against job applicants and employees on the basis of criminal history, and is particularly important for employers for two reasons: (1) it applies not only to criminal background checks performed by third-party vendors but also to checks performed entirely by the company, and (2) out-of-state non-employers may be held liable for aiding and abetting violations of the Act. For more on this latter point, read our prior post on the New York Court of Appeals opinion in Griffin v. Sirva, Inc.