Scherzer Blog

The FCRA Big Three Lawsuit Triggers

Hiring the right talent is critical but one overlooked detail in your background screening process can cost your company millions. Employers often assume background checks are routine, yet the legal landscape tells a different story. The majority of lawsuits tied to employment screening aren’t about discrimination or bad hires—they’re about technical compliance mistakes under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). These errors are easy to make and expensive to fix.

Research shows that approximately 73% of FCRA-related lawsuits against employers stem from these three common mistakes:

Non-compliant disclosure forms
Missing or delayed pre-adverse action notices
Inadequate authorization forms

The consequences can be significant: statutory damages of $100–$1,000 per violation, plus attorney fees, with settlements often reaching mid-six to seven figures.

Emerging Risk: Disparate Impact Discrimination

Background check policies and particularly those applying strict pass/fail criteria based on criminal history can unintentionally violate Title VII if they disproportionately impact protected groups. The EEOC has successfully challenged such blanket policies in litigation.

EEOC guidance emphasizes individualized assessments, considering:

The nature of the offense
Time elapsed since the offense
Relevance to the job

Relying on generalized exclusions without job-specific review creates legal risk. Additionally, many state and local laws impose specific requirements for individualized assessments.

Best Practices to Reduce Lawsuit Risk

To minimize exposure from background screening:

Use standalone, plain-language disclosure forms before any check.
Obtain written authorization in a separate form, not embedded in applications.
Follow the adverse action protocol: provide a pre-adverse notice with a copy of the report and summary of rights, and wait at least five business days before issuing the final notice.
Allow candidates to dispute findings.
Implement individualized assessments, especially for criminal record policies.
Regularly audit processes and train HR staff on evolving regulations.

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.

December 23rd, 2025|Compliance Corner, FCRA|

The Illusion of Instant Criminal Checks: Why a True National Criminal Database Still Doesn’t Exist

If you’ve ever been pitched a “national criminal database,” you’ve probably imagined a single, authoritative system that instantly returns every criminal record across the United States. That database doesn’t exist for non‑law‑enforcement users and relying on anything marketed that way can lead to missed records, inaccurate matches, and regulatory headaches.

What actually exists at the national level?

The FBI operates several national systems—NCIC, III, NGI, N‑DEx, and NICS—to support criminal justice operations. These are law‑enforcement systems, with access tightly constrained by federal law and regulation (including 28 C.F.R. § 20.33). Employers generally cannot query NCIC/III directly unless a statute authorizes fingerprint‑based checks for specific roles (e.g., child care, elder care, or other regulated positions) and the check is routed through the state repository per the Compact Council rules.

Even within law enforcement, these systems are indexes and exchanges that depend on state and local repositories to submit arrests and dispositions; coverage and timeliness vary. The DOJ/BJS surveys and FBI guidance repeatedly emphasize gaps and the critical need to report final court dispositions to keep records accurate.

So what are “national criminal databases” sold by private vendors?

Commercial “national” or multi‑jurisdictional files aggregate data from many sources (state repositories where available, departments of corrections, sex offender registries, selected county uploads, watchlists, etc.). They can be useful as a pointer or discovery tool, but they are not comprehensive and often not current enough to stand alone. Coverage varies by jurisdiction and update cadence; name‑match noise creates false positives/negatives, especially with common names.

Industry resources and compliance guidance are consistent on this point: use multi‑jurisdictional databases to broaden the net, then verify at the originating court or repository before reporting or taking action.

Why “database‑only” screening creates risk

Incomplete coverage: Not all courts or states report; updates lag. Recent charges or local misdemeanors may be absent.
Identity ambiguity: Limited identifiers can mis‑match results; aliases and data entry errors compound the problem.
Stale or missing dispositions: Arrests without case outcomes mislead; expungements or dismissals may remain in bulk feeds.
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) compliance exposure: The FCRA requires “reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy” and complete, up‑to‑date public record reporting. Database “hits” must be confirmed at the source, and consumers must be notified appropriately when adverse public records are reported for employment decisions.

Regulators have sharpened expectations. In 2024, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) reiterated that consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) must prevent reporting of duplicate or expunged/sealed items and include disposition information where available. CRAs also must disclose the source(s), both original and any intermediaries, when consumers request their files.

Why this still matters

Despite modernization, data gaps persist—especially in disposition reporting and identity matching. The newest BJS/SEARCH survey shows continued dependence on state repositories and varying automation/completeness across states, reinforcing why source verification and robust procedures remain critical.

Meanwhile, regulators (CFPB/FTC) are raising the bar on “maximum possible accuracy.” Organizations that rely on “instant database” products without verification risk adverse action mistakes, consumer disputes, and enforcement exposure.

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.

December 12th, 2025|Compliance Corner, FCRA|

Independent Contractors, Misclassification, and the FCRA: Lessons from Joel Galarza’s Eleventh Circuit Case

The Eleventh Circuit’s recent decision in Galarza v. One Call Claims, LLC sent ripples through compliance and risk management circles. At its core, the case addressed whether three insurance adjusters labeled as independent contractors were actually employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The court applied the economic realities test and concluded that a jury could reasonably find these workers were employees, reversing the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the companies. Five of six factors favored employee status, including:

Control over work: The companies dictated schedules, monitored performance, and approved overtime.
Economic dependence: Adjusters worked exclusively for the companies for nearly two years.
Integral role: Their work was central to the companies’ operations.
Permanency: Long-term, exclusive engagements suggested employment rather than independent contracting.

Why This Matters for Employment Background Screening

While the Galarza case was decided under the FLSA, it raises a critical question for compliance professionals: Should independent contractors be treated as employees for purposes of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)?

Under the FCRA, requirements such as stand-alone disclosures, written authorization, and pre-adverse action notices apply when a consumer report is obtained for “employment purposes.” The statute defines this as evaluating a consumer for employment, promotion, reassignment, or retention as an employee. Although Federal Trade Commission (FTC) staff reports have suggested that the FCRA’s “employment purpose” provision may extend to certain independent contractors, courts have generally taken a narrower view. For example, in Smith v. Mutual of Omaha (S.D. Iowa), the court held that background screening for contractor roles did not trigger the FCRA’s employment-related protections.

However, the Galarza decision underscores a practical risk: labels don’t control legal outcomes. If a contractor is later deemed an employee under an “economic realities” or similar test, a company could face exposure—not just under wage laws, but potentially under FCRA if the screening process didn’t meet employment-purpose requirements.

Compliance Takeaways

Don’t Rely on Labels Alone
Contracts calling someone an “independent contractor” won’t shield you if the working relationship looks like employment. Courts focus on substance over form.
Assess Classification Before Screening
If the role involves long-term, exclusive work under significant control, treat the individual as an employee for FCRA compliance. This means providing proper disclosures, obtaining written consent, and following adverse action procedures.
Update Policies and Vendor Agreements
Ensure your background screening policies clearly address contractor roles and include contingency plans if classification changes.
Monitor Legal Trends
The Eleventh Circuit’s ruling aligns with broader enforcement trends emphasizing misclassification risks. Expect more scrutiny in wage-and-hour and consumer reporting contexts.

Bottom Line

The Galarza case is a wake-up call: misclassification isn’t just a wage-and-hour issue—it’s a compliance risk that touches background screening and FCRA obligations. When in doubt, err on the side of treating high-control, long-term contractors as employees for screening purposes. It’s a small step that can prevent big liability

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.

November 11th, 2025|Compliance Corner, FCRA|

Scherzer International sponsors the Sunflower Wine Festival 2023

This year SI is one of the sponsors of Prayers From Maria Foundation’s annual Sunflower Wine Festival held on July 8, 2023. Prayers From Maria is a charity based in Rocky River, Ohio, dedicated to funding global research into the causes, prevention, treatments, and cure for the deadliest childhood brain tumors known as gliomas.

Ed and Megan McNamara started “Prayers From Maria Children’s Cancer Foundation” after their daughter Maria passed away in 2007 from glioma, a cancer of the brain, or brain tumor, which forms in the glial cells of the central nervous system.

Glial cells are those that surround and support nerve cells. While some brain cancers originate elsewhere in the body, gliomas originate in the central nervous system. They are often called “primary” brain tumors. That is dedicated to funding global research into the causes, prevention, treatments, and cure for deadly childhood brain tumors.

The foundation has a Medical Board comprising some of the country’s best doctors for this disease. Because childhood brain tumor research is underfunded, the McNamara family is diligently working to make a difference by raising public awareness and bringing hope to children and their families affected by this disease.

Please visit their website for more information on the Prayers From Maria Foundation.

July 20th, 2023|Press Release|

Minnesota Petty Misdemeanors and How to Report Them

Although nearly all state laws include criminal offense levels divided into two types – felonies and misdemeanors – there are many states with offense levels peculiar to their state law. One such peculiarity is Minnesota’s petty misdemeanor offense level.

In Minnesota, a petty misdemeanor is the lowest level of offense. Many but not all Minnesota traffic violations are petty misdemeanors. The unique aspect of a petty misdemeanor is that it is not considered a crime. (See for yourself here: Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 4a or the accompanying attachment.) A petty misdemeanor does not carry a jail sentence but can result in a fine of up to $300.

August 19th, 2022|Compliance Corner|

Reporting Criminal Convictions, the FCRA, and State Laws

Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), criminal convictions can appear in a background report regardless of when they occurred. It does not matter how old the conviction is. However, some states have passed their own legislation similar to the FCRA that does place restrictions on reporting criminal convictions.

Which states restrict reporting on convictions?

California, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Mexico, New York, New Hampshire, Texas, and Washington all have laws that limit the scope of reporting criminal convictions to seven years. In Hawaii, the seven-year limit is for felonies only; the reporting of misdemeanors is limited to five years. The District of Columbia limits the reporting of criminal convictions to 10 years.

All states not listed above follow the FCRA rule that criminal convictions can appear in a background report regardless of when they occurred.

The Salary Exception States

Seven of the states listed above allow an exception to their rule of limiting reporting criminal convictions to seven years. The exception is based on the salary the candidate is expected to make. If the salary exceeds a certain threshold, the seven-year limitation does not apply, and criminal convictions can appear in the candidate’s background report regardless of when they occurred.

Salary Exception States	Candidate’s Potential Salary Threshold
Colorado	$75,000
Kansas	$20,000
Maryland	$20,000
New Hampshire	$20,000
New York	$25,000
Texas	$75,000
Washington	$20,000

August 15th, 2022|Compliance Corner|

Workplace Investigations and the FCRA

Before a background check can be conducted on an applicant or employee, the FCRA requires that an employer (our client) provide a written disclosure form and obtain a signed authorization from the applicant or employee. While these requirements will apply to nearly all background checks, there are two situations in which the FCRA permits an employer to dispense with the disclosure and authorization requirements — an investigation of (1) suspected misconduct relating to employment or (2) compliance with federal, state, or local laws and regulations, the rules of a self-regulatory organization, or any preexisting written policies of the employer.

This alleviates the concern that providing the subject with advance disclosure of the investigation and obtaining the subject’s authorization to conduct the investigation would greatly hamper the investigation itself.

However, the FCRA does impose an obligation on the employer if adverse action, such as termination or suspension, is taken against the employee because of the investigation. In those situations, the FCRA requires the employer to provide the employee with a summary of the nature and substance of the investigation. Although the FCRA does not specify the time period within which the employer must provide the summary, it seems reasonable to provide it just after the adverse action is taken.

The FCRA does not require the employer to provide the employee with a copy of any report prepared for the investigation, nor does the FCRA require the employer to disclose in the summary the sources of the information obtained in the investigation. If co-workers, vendors, customers, or other individuals provided damaging information about the employee, their identities would not need to be disclosed to the employee in the FCRA summary.

August 11th, 2022|Compliance Corner|

CFPB’s Advisory Opinion on Name-Only Matching for Consumer Reporting

On July 12, 2022, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued an advisory opinion regarding the “permissible purpose requirement” of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) as it applies to both a consumer reporting agency (CRA) and a user of consumer reports (e.g., employer).

The CFPB’s position is that name-only matching records in a consumer report violate the permissible purpose requirement in FCRA section 604(a)(3). The CFPB noted that consumer report users must ensure they do not violate a person’s privacy by obtaining or using a report without a permissible purpose, and that a consumer reporting agency should not provide reports with “possible matches” to users.

The CFPB further warned that including a disclaimer in the report, such as “this record was matched to the subject by First Name, Last Name ONLY and may not belong to your subject; your further review of the [source] is required in order to determine if this is your subject” does not adequately address the problem of using name-only matching procedures because the report may include information about a person other than the subject for whom the CRA has a permissible purpose. In the CFPB’s view, a disclaimer “will not change the fact that the consumer reporting company has failed to satisfy the requirements of 604(a)(3) and has provided a consumer report about a person lacking a permissible purpose with respect to that person.”

The CFPB’s advisory opinion raises the possibility that employers, as users of such consumer reports, could be held liable for FCRA permissible purpose violations resulting from a CRA’s matching procedures or mistakes. The opinion emphasized the CFPB’s position that there is strict liability for obtaining or using a consumer report without a permissible purpose and also included a reminder about criminal liability for knowing or willful violations of the FCRA provisions.

July 19th, 2022|Compliance Corner|

Civil Judgments v. Judgment Liens: What is the Difference?

A civil judgment and a judgment lien are not the same things, although they do relate to the same debt.

A civil judgment is an official decision by the court regarding a civil lawsuit. If the judgment is in favor of the plaintiff (the party filing the lawsuit), the judgment typically awards the plaintiff a sum of money that must be paid by the defendant (the party sued by the plaintiff). A civil judgment can be located in a search of civil court records.

If the judgment debtor (the defendant who lost the lawsuit) fails to voluntarily pay or “satisfy the judgment,” it is up to the judgment creditor (the plaintiff who won the lawsuit) to enforce or collect the judgment.

There are a variety of ways to enforce a civil judgment. A common method of enforcing a judgment is for the judgment creditor to file a judgment lien, which is also often referred to as an “abstract of judgment.” This is an involuntary lien that the judgment creditor files to attach to the judgment debtor’s property in the jurisdiction where the judgment lien is filed. The judgment lien is typically filed in the county recorder’s office but may also be filed at the courthouse in some jurisdictions. In general, the lien is satisfied from the sale proceeds when the judgment debtor sells the property or when a refinance occurs.

July 14th, 2022|Compliance Corner|

State and Federal Court Searches: Removal vs. Remand

The U.S. has a dual court system — state courts and federal courts. State courts are established by state law and have broad jurisdiction, which means they handle many types of cases. Federal courts are established under the U.S. Constitution and have a limited jurisdiction, typically limited to cases involving the Constitution and laws passed by Congress.

In some cases, the parties may disagree about whether the case should be heard in state or federal court. When this occurs, your court searches may locate state cases that have been “removed to federal court” or federal cases that have been “remanded back to state court” – and sometimes both procedures will happen to the same case.

“Removal” is when a defendant takes a case that was filed by the plaintiff in state court and then brings it to federal court. A defendant can remove a case from state court to federal court if the case originally could have been brought in federal court. The plaintiff can challenge the removal to federal court and, if the challenge is successful, the federal court will “remand” the case back to state court.

July 12th, 2022|Compliance Corner|