The Scherzer Deal Report: March 18-25, 2020
Here is this week’s Deal Report for private equity and venture capital activity for US-based PE and VC firms and portfolio companies, brought to you by Scherzer International.
|
|
|
Here is this week’s Deal Report for private equity and venture capital activity for US-based PE and VC firms and portfolio companies, brought to you by Scherzer International.
|
|
|
As noted in our previous communication, disaster preparedness is an integral part of our risk management program and includes pandemic preparedness. As the “Safer at Home” emergency order went into effect for Los Angeles County on March 19, we have fully activated our business continuation plan in both our headquarters in Woodland Hills, CA and as a precautionary measure, in our Rocky River, OH office.
The plan is multi-faceted and has been designed to provide a seamless remote operation–our workforce has the training, equipment, technology support and other resources necessary to provide the quality reports and exceptional service you expect.
We are committed to doing our part to limit the spread of the virus and remain dedicated to the health, well-being, and safety of our employees and clients. And, just as importantly, we are committed to being here for you.
We recognize this is a tough situation for all of us and we wish you well during this time. Please continue to reach out to us with any questions or needs.
Here is this week’s Deal Report for private equity and venture capital activity for US-based PE and VC firms and portfolio companies, brought to you by Scherzer International.
|
|
|
Here is this week’s Deal Report for private equity and venture capital activity for US-based PE and VC firms and portfolio companies, brought to you by Scherzer International.
|
|
|
At Scherzer International, we are keenly aware of the potential impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) and are taking steps to provide for the continuity of our services and the safety of our employees. Disaster preparedness is an integral part of our risk management program and includes a viable pandemic plan. Below are some of the features of the plan and actions we are taking:
The outbreak of COVID-19 and its threats are changing rapidly. We will provide further updates as new information is available.
Disclaimer: This communication is for general informational purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice. No recipient should act, or refrain from acting, on the basis of any information provided here without advice from a qualified attorney licensed in the applicable jurisdiction.
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.
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” 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.
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.
Here is this week’s Deal Report for private equity and venture capital activity for US-based PE and VC firms and portfolio companies, brought to you by Scherzer International.
|
|
|