ORDER A REPORT
SECURE FILE UPLOAD

Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions refers to an internal or external resource hub that helps HR teams, managers, and compliance officers navigate the legal requirements tied to employment actions. It ensures decisions are consistent, documented, job‑related, and nondiscriminatory.

Here’s what a strong Compliance Corner usually includes:

  • Legal frameworks — Title VII, ADA, ADEA, FCRA, state laws, and local ordinances.
  • Adverse employment actions — what counts, how to document them, and how to avoid discriminatory impact.
  • Fair Chance hiring — compliant use of criminal history, individualized assessments, and Ban‑the‑Box rules.
  • Background check compliance — proper disclosures, authorizations, and adverse‑action procedures.
  • EEOC guidance — how to ensure decisions are job‑related and consistent with business necessity.
  • Documentation standards — how to record performance issues, investigations, and decision rationale.
  • Consistency in decision‑making — avoiding disparate treatment and disparate impact.
  • Manager training — ensuring supervisors understand legal boundaries and company policy.

Proposed New Jersey bills restrict use of criminal records in employment decisions

In February 2013, identical bills aimed at reducing employment discrimination against individuals with criminal histories were introduced in the New Jersey Senate (S2586) and the New Jersey Assembly (A3837). Both bills propose the adoption of the Opportunity to Compete Act (the “Act”) which would impose multiple restrictions and requirements on employers in connection with seeking and using criminal background information about job applicants. If the Act is adopted, New Jersey will join a growing list of states, cities, and localities which have passed similar anti-discrimination legislation.

March 29th, 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: , |

Revamped Form 1-9 makes its debut

On March 8, 2013, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (the “USCIS”) announced that its newly revised Form I-9 is to be used immediately. Notably, as indicated in the Federal Register, the USCIS granted companies until May 7, 2013 to implement the new form, which purportedly has been designed to minimize completion errors. This 60-day grace period allows employers time to adjust their human resource processes, and modify their software. The USCIS has also updated its “Handbook for Employers – Guidance for Completing the Form I-9” (3.8.13 version) to correspond to the new form, and is holding webinars to educate companies in the form’s usage.

The USCIS noted that employers do not need to complete the new form for employees for whom they already have a proper Form I–9 on file, unless re-verification applies. Unnecessary verification may violate the anti-discrimination provision of section 274B of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1324b, which is enforced by the DOJ’s Office of Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices.

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: , |

California limits social media use by employers and educational institutions

Effective January 1, 2013, California will join Maryland and Illinois in significantly restricting employers’ access to their employees’ and job applicants’ social media accounts. Signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown on September 27, 2012 and fittingly announced via Twitter, AB 1844 provides that an employer cannot require or request an employee or applicant to do any of the following:

  • disclose a username or password for the purpose of accessing personal social media;
  • access personal social media in the presence of the employer;
  • divulge any personal social media, except as provided in subdivision.

The law also prohibits an employer from discharging, disciplining, or otherwise retaliating against an employee or applicant for not complying with a request or demand by the employer that violates these provisions. However, an employer is not prohibited from terminating or taking an adverse action against an employee or applicant if otherwise permitted by law.

The law does preserve an employer’s rights and obligations to request that an employee divulge personal social media information reasonably believed to be relevant to an investigation of allegation(s) of employee misconduct or violation of applicable laws and regulations, provided that the information is used solely for purposes of that investigation or a related proceeding. An employer is also not precluded from requiring or requesting that an employee disclose a username or password for the purpose of accessing an employer-issued electronic device.

A companion law, AB 1349 that establishes similar requirements for postsecondary education institutions in regard to their students also goes into effect on January 1, 2013.

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

State laws restricting the use of criminal records gain momentum

By now, most employers are familiar with the EEOC’s April 2012 updated enforcement guidance on the use of arrest and conviction records for employment decisions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And related state and local laws are quickly gaining momentum. More than 30 cities and at least 26 states now limit the type of criminal background information that employers can obtain or when they can request it.

Effective July 1, 2012, Indiana will join the roster of the restricting states. Its  SB 1033 will, in part, ban certain pre-employment inquiries, limit the types of criminal record information that employers and consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) can obtain from Indiana courts, and restrict criminal history information that CRAs can provide in background reports.

This law also provides that Indiana residents with restricted or sealed criminal records may legally state on an “application for employment or any other document” that they have not been adjudicated, arrested or convicted of the offense specified in these records. Covered employers (the term “employer” is not defined) will be prohibited from asking an “employee, contract employee, or applicant” about such records.

Limiting the scope that can be included in a background report, the law further prohibits courts from disclosing information pertaining to alleged infractions where the individual:

  • is not prosecuted or if the action is dismissed;
  • is adjudged not to have committed the infraction;
  • is adjudged to have committed the infraction and the adjudication is vacated; or
  • was convicted of the infraction and satisfied any judgment attendant to the infraction conviction more than five years ago.

Criminal history providers, such as CRAs, that obtain criminal history information from the state may only furnish information pertaining to criminal convictions, and are prohibited from including the following in background reports:

  • an infraction, an arrest or a charge that did not result in a conviction;
  • a record that has been expunged;
  • a record indicating a conviction of a Class D felony if the Class D felony conviction has been entered as or converted to a Class A misdemeanor conviction; and
  • a record that the criminal history provider knows is inaccurate.

Among other significant mandates, criminal history information obtained from the state by CRAs may not include any Indiana criminal record information in an assembled report unless the CRA updates the information to reflect changes to the official record occurring 60 days or more before the date the criminal history report is delivered.

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

Diploma mill ordered to pay $22.7 million to 30,000 scam victims

On August 31, 2012, Belford High School, Belford University and several of their co-conspirators were ordered to pay $22.7 million to a class of more than 30,000 U.S. residents who were duped into purchasing fake high school diplomas from Belford. The defendants were also ordered to forfeit the websites used to perpetrate the scam, including www.belfordhighscool.com, www.belfordhighschool.org, www.belforduniversity.org, and www.belforduniversity.com.

The lawsuit, filed on November 5, 2009, charged that Belford High School is an Internet scam that defrauded students of their money by offering them a supposedly “valid” and “accredited” high school diploma. As affirmed by the judgment, the school is a fake and the diplomas are not valid. The lawsuit also alleged that the two accrediting agencies by which Belford claimed to be accredited – International Accreditation Agency for Online Universities and the Universal Council for Online Education Accreditation – are not legitimate accrediting agencies.

Notably, we came across Belford University in 2010 when a bachelor’s degree from the “school” was listed on an employment application by a candidate for a professional level position with one of our clients. Click here to read the 2010 blog.

 

December 18th, 2012|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , , , |

Vermont is the latest state to restrict credit reports in employment decisions

Effective July 1, 2012, Vermont will be the eighth state to regulate the use of credit-related information for employment purposes. Although similar in many ways to laws already enacted in California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Oregon and Washington, Vermont’s requirements under Act No. 154 exceed those of other state laws as they prohibit even exempt employers from using an applicant or employee’s credit history as the “sole factor” in employment decisions. Additionally, Vermont exempt employers who take adverse action based in part on a credit history must return the report to the individual or destroy it altogether. Neither the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) nor any of the other similar state laws imposes such a requirement.

Generally, the Act prohibits employers from inquiring into an applicant’s or employee’s credit report or credit history, and further bans employers from discriminating against or making employment decisions (e.g. hire, fire, alter the compensation or any other term or employment condition) based on a credit report or credit history. Notably, credit history in this context includes credit information obtained from any third party that reflects or pertains to an applicant’s or employee’s “borrowing or repaying behavior, financial condition or ability to meet financial obligations,” even if that information is not contained in a “credit report.”

The trend in restricting credit report use for employment purposes will continue as several other states and the federal government are considering comparable legislation. Soon to follow most likely will be New Jersey. In May 31, 2012, the Senate approved S455 that would prohibit employers from seeking credit checks on employees or applicants under most circumstances. A parallel bill (A2840) was introduced by the Assembly on May 11, 2012, and a similar bill (A704) in December 2011.

July 2nd, 2012|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , , , |

What’s the practical meaning of EEOC’s new criminal records guidance?

On April 25, 2012, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) approved new enforcement guidance regarding the use of arrest and conviction records in employment decisions. The guidance builds on longstanding court decisions and requirements that the EEOC issued over twenty years ago, focusing on employment discrimination based on race and national origin.

In brief, the new guidance’s position is more aggressive, affirming that employers cannot automatically disqualify applicants with criminal records, and that their screening policies need to be consistent and structured for “individual assessment.” The guidance’s main points state that:

  • An arrest record does not establish that criminal conduct has occurred, and an exclusion based on an arrest, in itself, is not job related and consistent with a business necessity. However, an employer may make an employment decision based on the conduct underlying an arrest if such conduct makes the individual unfit for the particular position.
  • A conviction record will usually serve as sufficient evidence that a person engaged in a particular conduct. In certain circumstances, however, there may be reasons not to rely on the conviction record alone when making an employment decision.
  • A violation may occur when an employer treats criminal history information disparately for different applicants or employees, based on their race or national origin (disparate treatment liability). An employer’s neutral policy (e.g., excluding applicants from employment based on certain criminal conduct) also may disproportionately impact protected-class individuals and may violate the law if not job related and consistent with a business necessity (disparate impact liability)

The EEOC specifies two circumstances in which employers will meet the “job related and consistent with a business necessity” defense:

  • The employer validates the criminal conduct exclusion for the particular position under the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (i.e., if there is data or analysis about criminal conduct as being related to subsequent work performance or conduct;) or
  • The employer develops a targeted screen considering at a minimum the nature of the crime, the time elapsed, and the particular job. The employer’s policy then provides an opportunity for an individualized assessment for those individuals identified by the screen to determine if the policy, as applied, is job related and consistent with a business necessity.

The guidance further asserts that although Title VII does not require individualized assessment in all circumstances, the use of a screen that does not include such assessment is more likely to violate its provisions. As an example of individualized assessment process, the EEOC recommends providing the applicants an opportunity to explain why they should not be denied a position due to the criminal record. The guidance also specifies the following factors that employers should assess:

  • Facts or circumstances surrounding the offense or conduct;
  • Number of charges of which the individual was convicted;
  • Older age at the time of conviction, or release from prison;
  • Evidence that the individual performed the same type of work, post-conviction, with the same or different employer, with no known incidents of criminal conduct;
  • Length and consistency of employment before and after the offense or conduct;
  • Rehabilitation efforts, e.g., education/training;
  • Employment or character references and any other information regarding fitness for the particular position; and
  • Whether the individual is bonded under a federal, state, or local bonding program.

The guidance recognizes that some employers are subject to federal statutory and/or regulatory requirements that prohibit them from hiring individuals with criminal records for certain positions. The EEOC notes that its new guidance does not preempt such federal guidelines, and explains that employers may be subject to a claim under Title VII if they scrutinize individuals to a higher degree than required under applicable federal requirements.

As in its previous version, the EEOC’s new guidance is not meant to be a deterrent to conducting background checks. But it should serve as a reminder that hiring policies and practices must be structured in compliance with the law.  

June 1st, 2012|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , |

Federal Sentencing Guidelines: a lure to organizational compliance

 

About 20 years ago, the United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) enacted the Federal Sentencing Guidelines (FSGs) for organizations with the intent to govern the sentencing of companies convicted of federal crimes. The FSGs, which have been amended several times, hold that organizations can act only through agents and, under federal criminal law, generally are vicariously liable for offenses committed by their agents.

A proactive approach to prevent, detect and report illegal and unethical activities can substantially reduce fines and punishment, in some cases up to 95% according to a commentary by the USSC. The USSC specifies that the two factors that mitigate an organization’s ultimate punishment are “the existence of an effective compliance and ethics program, and self-reporting, cooperation, or acceptance of responsibility.” In contrast, the absence of solid compliance mechanisms can increase fines and punishment, as verdict determination is based on “the organization’s involvement in or tolerance of criminal activity, its prior history, violation of an order, and obstruction of justice.”

The compliance incentives provided by the FSGs and the proliferation of new regulations mandate a cultural imperative for ethical and law-abiding conduct by all companies, large and small. High-level attention, leadership and sufficient resources must be dedicated to meet the strict requirements of a compliance program defined by the USSC as “effective.” In its manual, the USSC emphasizes the necessity of strong due diligence to prevent and detect criminal conduct. Among its guidelines, a provision in Chapter 8 notes that:

“The organization shall use reasonable efforts not to include within the substantial authority personnel of the organization any individual whom the organization knew, or should have known through the exercise of due diligence, has engaged in illegal activities or other conduct inconsistent with an effective compliance and ethics program.”

Comprehensive background investigations, whether for employment purposes, evaluation of prospective clients, existing relationships and third-parties, or for other business transactions, are essential for compelling due diligence which actualizes a masterful compliance strategy. Although various committees and officials are calling for a complete review of the FSGs which the 2005 landmark case U.S. vs. Booker held as discretionary rather than mandatory, well-developed compliance programs are here to stay.

Scherzer International is on the forefront of the quick-changing regulations regime with a portfolio of background investigation products designed to facilitate purposeful risk management and compliance protocols. Visit us often at www.scherzer.com as we continuously analyze and test new elements and incorporate them into our products if they have proven value. And stay tuned for a Dodd-Frank regulations product which we will introduce within the next few months.

November 29th, 2011|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: |
© 2012- SCHERZER INTERNATIONAL | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Go to Top