California

California’s marijuana laws present challenges for employers

Even for those not partaking in marijuana, the various California laws regulating its use can be confusing – particularly for employers.

The trend in state legislatures to permit the recreational and/or medicinal use of marijuana began with California’s Compassionate Use Act in 1996, which allowed state residents to use the drug for medical purposes and decriminalized possession of less than 28 grams. Complicating the matter, however: marijuana use remains prohibited by federal law.

With limited use of marijuana legal in the state, how can employers find out about a worker’s use of the drug or limit it without running afoul of state law?

Employers have two options, either try to get their hands on historical information, such as criminal convictions, or seek out current input via drug testing.

Criminal history related to drugs in many instances is off-limits for employers. Job applicants cannot be required to disclose an arrest that did not result in a conviction or participation in a pretrial or post-trial diversion program. Any criminal history that has been expunged, sealed, or dismissed will be unavailable as are marijuana-related convictions dating back more than two years.

While California has not banned the box for private employers, local jurisdictions such as San Francisco have, requiring employers to wait until after a live interview or determining that an applicant meets the qualifications for the position before inquiring into criminal history. Background checks – whether performed in-house or by a third party – require compliance with federal law (the Fair Credit and Reporting Act (FCRA) as well as California’s counterpart, the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (although the legality of the state statute is unclear, see story below for more detail). And such investigations into applicants’ history are a current target for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission – which has filed multiple lawsuits (https://scherzer.co/eeoc-loses-again-in-challenge-to-background-checks/) against employers alleging their background checks constitute disparate impact discrimination against protected groups like African-Americans – and a popular basis for class actions. Recent cases have settled with multi-million awards, including a $2.5 million payout by Domino’s Pizza and a $6.8 million deal between Publix Super Markets and a class of applicants alleging the company violated the FCRA.

Drug tests can be viable option for employers. Once a job offer has been made, an employer may require an applicant to pass a drug test as a condition of employment (as long as all potential employees are subject to the same requirement). After a worker has been hired, drug tests may be used if an employer has a reasonable suspicion that the employee is under the influence. Certain jobs – such as those in the transportation industry like truck drivers – may permit such testing more freely. If a test comes back positive, employers do have the discretion to discipline, terminate, or choose not to hire an applicant even if the individual legally holds a medical marijuana card issued by the state. In addition, despite the requirements under the Americans With Disabilities Act and California state law to provide reasonable accommodations to employees considered disabled, neither federal nor state law requires employers to permit marijuana use as such an accommodation.

September 23rd, 2015|Criminal Activity, Employment Decisions|

Trend of suing employers for technical FCRA violations continues

The threat of a multi-million potential class action lawsuit alleging technical violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) continues to haunt employers, even where the plaintiffs have alleged or proven no harm.

Pursuant to the statute, employers are required to “provide prior written notice before they can procure a consumer report about any employee or applicant for employment.” Just as important, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i) adds that the notice must be given “in a document that consists solely of the disclosure.”

Seeking to take advantage of the statutory damages available under the FCRA – from $100 up to $1,000 for a willful violation – plaintiffs have challenged employers’ use of a disclosure form that combined the written notice to procure a consumer report with other information or documents, such as an application form.

The trend to sue for FCRA technical violations was started by Singleton v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC in the U.S. District Court of Maryland (case no. 8:11-cv-01823-DKC) where the court ruled that inclusion of a liability release in the employer’s disclosure/authorization form violates the FCRA. Domino’s ended up reaching a settlement with the plaintiffs in 2013 for $2.5 million.

Also taking a strict reading of the statutory language, the Western District Court of Pennsylvania ruled in 2013 in Reardon v. Closetmaid Corporation (case no. 2:0S-cv-01730) that an employer could be liable for the combination of a disclosure/authorization with a liability waiver, and granted summary judgment in favor of the roughly 1,800 job applicants.

In a more recent example, a class of applicants sued Publix Super Markets in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee (case no. 3:14-cv-00720) also based on a violation of the sole disclosure requirement and release of liability. With Domino’s and Closetmaid’s payouts looming over its head and a class of 90,000, Publix agreed to settle the claims for $6.8 million earlier last year.

Although these companies opted not to fight the suits on their merits, a defendant in a case filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (case no. 1:14-742-WBS-BAM) did and won dismissal in October 2014. Syed v. M-I LLC involved identical claims but the judge reached a contrary decision, finding that the FCRA text was not as clear-cut as the plaintiff claimed. Immediately following the subsection mandating the sole disclosure of the employer’s intent to procure a consumer report is a provision that states that the consumer’s authorization is to “be made on the document referred to in clause (i)” – “that is, the same document as the disclosure,” the court noted, and “…thus, the statute itself suggests that the term ‘solely’ is more flexible than at first it may appear…”

The Syed decision is the second one that may give hope to employers facing similar suits. (There are at least six class actions pending.) But the obvious answer for companies looking to avoid the problem entirely is simple: use a standalone disclosure/authorization form that is separate from any other information or documents.

January 29th, 2015|Employment Decisions, Lawsuit|

Medical marijuana laws put employers in a tough spot

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.

January 29th, 2015|Employment Decisions|

California expands privacy protections for state residents

A perennial trendsetter with regard to data security and privacy, California has updated its state law with tweaks that expand the scope of the privacy protections for state residents.

A.B. 1710 made three changes to existing law that go into effect January 1, 2015: first, businesses that maintain “personal information” about California residents must “implement and maintain appropriate and reasonable security procedures and practices” to protect the data from “unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure.” Personal information is defined to include an individual’s first name or first initial and last name, Social Security number, driver’s license number, as well as medical and financial account information.

Second, if a person or business was “the source” of a data breach and offers to provide identity theft prevention and mitigation services to affected individuals, the business must offer the services at no cost for at least 12 months. Some controversy has swirled around this provision, with debate on whether the language actually requires businesses to provide one year of free identity theft protection and mitigation services or if the law simply requires that if the services are offered, they last for 12 months and are provided gratis. Additional guidance may be forthcoming.

Finally, the new legislation prohibits a business from “selling, offering for sale, or advertising for sale” Social Security numbers. Limited exceptions were noted in the bill, including “if the release

[not necessarily a sale] of the Social Security number is incidental to a larger transaction and is necessary to identify the individual in order to accomplish a legitimate business purpose” or “for a purpose specifically authorized or specifically allowed by federal or state law.”

The law’s scope reaches well beyond the borders of California, as it applies to businesses that maintain any personal information about a state resident. Companies would be well advised to familiarize themselves with the new requirements.

To read AB 1710, click here.

December 3rd, 2014|Legislation, Privacy|

California’s A.B. 1710 enhances privacy protections for sensitive personal information

Effective January 1, 2015, A.B. 1710 amends California’s breach notification, security procedures, and Social Security number (SSN) laws, generally outlined as follows:

provides that existing personal information data security obligations apply to businesses that maintain personal information, in addition to those who own or license the information;
provides that if the person or business issuing the notification was the source of the breach, an offer to provide appropriate identity theft prevention and mitigation services, if any, be made at no cost to the affected person for not less than 12 months, along with all information necessary to take advantage of the offer to any person whose information was or may have been breached, if the breach exposed or may have exposed SSN and driver’s license numbers;
provides that a person or entity may not sell, advertise for sale, or offer to sell an individual’s SSN, except as permitted.

October 15th, 2014|Legislation, Security|

New law bans California employers from asking about dismissed criminal records

Effective January 1, 2014, SB 530, will ban most California employers from asking employees or applicants about arrests that did not result in conviction (except for arrests for which the individual is still awaiting trial) or about participation in a pretrial or post trial diversion program. Generally, the new law prohibits most employers from asking applicants to disclose, or use as a factor in employment decisions, any information concerning a conviction that has been judicially dismissed or ordered sealed.

December 10th, 2013|Employment Decisions, Legislation|

California passes two new data privacy laws

Effective January 1, 2014, California will have two new data privacy laws: AB 370, which mandates disclosure of “do not track” and other tracking practices in online privacy policies, and SB 46, which amends the state’s data security breach notification law.

AB 370 adds to the California Online Privacy Protection Act (“CalOPPA”) a requirement for companies that collect personally identifiable information online to include disclosures regarding (1) how they respond to a web browser’s “do not track” (DNT) signal, and (2) if third-parties can collect personal information across a network of sites. The law does not require websites to honor browser DNT signals or block third-party tracking; it simply tries to increase transparency about the site’s practices.

SB 46 adds a new category of data triggering California’s breach notification requirements, to wit: “a user name or e-mail address, in combination with a password or security question and answer that would permit access to an online account.” The new law requires notification of unauthorized access to user credential information even if that information is encrypted.

October 25th, 2013|Educational Series, Legislation, Privacy|

Tenant screening laws update: passing background check costs to the applicants

The states of Washington and Oregon recently enacted laws in connection with tenant screening. Among the provisions in both Washington’s RCW §59.18.257 and Oregon’s OAS §90.295, is that the entire cost of the background check can be charged to the applicant, if the screening is performed by a consumer reporting agency (“CRA”). However, if the landlord conducts the background check, it may not charge in excess of the customary fees of the CRAs in its geographical area.

Notably, California’s Civil Code §1950.6(b) provides that a landlord cannot charge (or pass-through) to the applicant more than $30 for a background check. This application screening fee may be adjusted annually by the landlord or its agent commensurate with an increase in the Consumer Price Index. (The current adjusted amount is $41.50.)

September 12th, 2013|Business Transactions, Legislation|

Do you know about the Right to Know Act?

The recently introduced “Right to Know Act of 2013” (Assembly Bill 1291), would require any business that retains or shares personal information of California residents to provide, at no charge and within 30 days of receiving a request from the subject, all information retained about him/her, as well as the names and contact information for all third parties to whom that business has disclosed the information within the last 12 months. This legislation is a significant expansion of the rights provided under California’s 2003 Shine the Light law, which this bill would repeal.

May 6th, 2013|Legislation|

New California law requires efforts to ensure supply chains are free of slavery

Effective January 1, 2012, California SB657, known as The California Transparency in Supply Chains Act of 2010, will mandate retail sellers and manufacturers doing business in California with annual gross receipts exceeding $100 million to conspicuously and clearly disclose their efforts and policies for ensuring that their supply chains are free from human trafficking and slavery.

The targeted companies are required to make these disclosures on their websites; if a company does not have a website, the information must be provided in writing within 30 days of a consumer request. Although the Act does not mandate any specific language, the disclosure must be easily understood and explain the procedures, if any, that the company has in place, in reference to:

Evaluating and addressing the human trafficking and slavery risks in its product supply chains (disclosure must state whether or not the company is using a third-party to assess these risks);
Requiring direct suppliers to certify that the materials used in the products comply with slavery and human trafficking laws in the countries in which they are doing business;
Conducting supplier audits to evaluate compliance with company standards on trafficking and slavery (disclosure must state whether or not the audits are independent and unannounced);
Maintaining accountability standards and procedures for employees or contractors who fail to meet company standards regarding slavery and human trafficking;
Training employees and managers who have direct responsibility with supply chain management on the mitigation of human trafficking and slavery risks.

While the Act has gained significant attention by California companies, its expansive jurisdictional provisions make it applicable to many large retail sellers and manufacturers that are organized or domiciled outside of California, as the $100 million gross receipts threshold for compliance is based on worldwide sales revenue. And since the threshold is relatively low and set in dollar amounts, it can be as triggered by earning less than 1% of that revenue in the state, owning some property or having even one employee or contractor here (see CA Revenue and Taxation Code Section 23101 for a full definition of “doing business in California.”)

California SB657 is a disclosure law and does not require companies to do things differently, but its deceptive simplicity brings into focus the importance of proactive risk management. And for many companies, it is a call to action to move beyond this law’s mere disclosure compliance and implement or strengthen their risk management programs not only for brand equity protection but also in recognition of their corporate social responsibility.

In our products portfolio, SI offers specialized background investigations for vendor/third-party engagements which include elements and search strategies designed to find, among other criteria, indications or records of slavery and human trafficking in supply chains.

The Act is a disclosure law and does not impose any substantive regulation on supply chain activities. Nor, unlike the “conflict minerals” provisions of the Dodd-Frank regulatory reform law, 9 does it impose any affirmative obligations on companies to perform diligence regarding the existence of slavery or human trafficking in their supply chains. Nonetheless, as a matter of corporate social responsibility as well as public image, companies may wish to consider whether it is appropriate to adopt policies or procedures to mitigate the risk that slavery or human trafficking exist in their supply chains.

December 11th, 2011|Legislation|

Previous 12

This is the development site for Scherzer International and the information may not be up to date.Please visit our production website.

California

This is the development site for Scherzer International and the information may not be up to date.
Please visit our production website.