Employment Decisions

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|Educational Series|

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|Educational Series, Employment Decisions, Social Media|

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|Employment Decisions|

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|Employment Decisions, Legislation|

“Ban the box” legislation gains momentum

Across the country, municipalities and states are enacting legislation called “ban the box” which generally prohibits employers from asking job candidates about their criminal histories on applications. The legislation also makes it unlawful for a covered employer to take any adverse action against an individual on the basis of an arrest or criminal accusation that did not result in a conviction. The states of California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New Mexico have enacted some form of the legislation along with more than 26 cities and counties in Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin and Washington. (A complete list of municipalities that have “banned the box” is posted at
http://www.nelp.org/page/-/SCLP/2010/BantheBoxcurrent.pdf?nocdn=1).

However, except for Hawaii and Massachusetts, the legislation has been limited to public employers, or public employers and vendors and contractors serving public entities. The city of Philadelphia, which is the most recent addition to this growing list, is the first municipality to pass a law that covers private employers with 10 or more employees. Below are some jurisdictional highlights of the enacted legislation:

  • Hawaii and Massachusetts private and public employers cannot consider felony convictions that are more than 10 years old. And in Massachusetts, employers are not permitted to consider misdemeanor convictions that are more than five years old.
  • Hawaii and the cities of Chicago, Hartford, and Cincinnati allow an employer to ask about an applicant’s criminal record only after a conditional offer of employment has been extended.
  • Chicago, San Francisco, and Boston require a public employer denying employment on the basis of a conviction to justify its decision based on EEOC’s guidelines which include the nature and gravity of the crime, the time that has passed since the conviction, and the relativity of the crime to the position.

Proponents of “ban the box” are confident that the legislation will be a significant factor in lowering recidivism rates, as it will allow applicants to demonstrate their skills and qualifications prior to disclosing criminal histories. And many experts say that such laws will expand beyond the borders of the United States in the very near future.

October 17th, 2011|Employment Decisions, Legislation|

Paying for ambiguity: the myths of instant background checks and national databases

The cottage industry of data-collection agencies that provide inexpensive background information is flourishing even in this tough economy. Many prospective employers with tight budgets believe they can save money by relying on the “national” records that are spewed out within minutes of entering a credit card number. So just what do you get for $19.99? Not much. Or a lot…a lot of worthless data, that is. Unverified name-match only records come up by the hundreds if the name is fairly common. And it is nearly impossible to determine case details or duplicate filings, as the cryptic printouts often require specialized knowledge that is specific to each state, municipality or records venue.

Many subjects who are flagged as criminals in these databases have never been convicted of a crime. In fact, according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice statistics for felony defendants in large urban counties, one-third of felony arrests never lead to a conviction. And there is no standardized process for reporting arrests and dispositions or updating the records at the various court levels. Some reported offenses are not actually violations of the criminal code in the particular state, but may still show up in these databases.

There are few regulations governing the use of background information beyond the provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) does not mandate that data aggregators provide guidance on how to properly interpret their records. The only possible value of these so-called national databases is to serve as an indicator that a record may exist, and use the search results to supplement a full investigation. Since the FCRA requires that all “reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information are followed” and that “the information is complete and up-to-date,” searches for employment purposes must be conducted either manually or through direct access in the particular court where the record is filed.

Employment experts at a July 2011 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) hearing urged the Commission to consider the comprehensive recommendations put forth by the National Employment Law Project (NELP) in its report on the effect of criminal background checks in employment decisions. Among its recommendations, the NELP suggested that the EEOC revise its now 20-year-old guide on conviction records in view of the “intervening proliferation of instant computerized background information…” The EEOC should also address the “use of arrest records and third-party databases that are considered a part of the hiring process.”

October 17th, 2011|Educational Series|

Risk-based approach to employment screening rates high on value chain

In today’s world just about every company knows that an effective employment screening program is invaluable for hiring qualified individuals, reducing turnover, deterring fraud and other criminal actions, and avoiding or mitigating litigation.

Recognizing that a “bad” hire is a threat to the bottom line, many companies, from investment bankers to law firms, are taking a risk-focused approach to background investigations and deciding what is appropriate or how much should be done to ensure organizational success. For example, obtaining a credit report or checking civil records for an entry-level applicant with low risk responsibilities may be of limited use, while reviewing such record histories for someone who will handle money or have access to sensitive information may be imperative in assessing his/her suitability for a position of trust.

Best practices in both the government and in the private sector indicate that a risk designation should be determined for every position, based on its description of duties and responsibilities. The risk grade should be commensurate with the employee’s assigned trust level, financial accountability, access to sensitive and confidential information and critical data systems, autonomy, discretionary authority, and potential opportunity for misconduct.

To be effective and non-discriminatory, employment screening policies need to specify a uniform set of background investigation elements for all position/assignment levels, including new hires, temporary workers, interns, transferred and promoted employees, contractors and volunteers.

SI has a full suite of employment background investigation products. Please visit our website at https://scherzer.co/ to learn more or order an investigation.

September 13th, 2011|Educational Series, Employment Decisions, Risk Management|

Controversy abounds in employment decisions based on social media searches

In May 2011, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ruled that companies providing social media information to employers – and employers who use the reports – must follow the same Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) regulations that apply to more traditional sources. The FTC also stated that postings on any social media site can be saved by on-line background screening companies for up to seven years.

According to the FTC’s letter dated May 9, 2011 to a company that sells information from social networking sites for employment purposes, such a company is considered a Consumer Reporting Agency (CRA) and thus must take reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of the information obtained from online social networks (as well as other sources) and positively identify it with the subject. It also must comply with other FCRA provisions, such as providing a copy of the report to the subject and maintaining an established protocol if the subject disputes the reported information. As with “traditional” background investigations, employers who use a report prepared by a CRA must certify to the CRA that the report will not be used in violations of federal or state equal employment opportunity laws or regulations. Additionally, both the CRA and the employer have a legal obligation to keep and dispose of the reports securely and properly. (For more information, see the FTC blog, “The Fair Credit Reporting Act & Social Media: What Businesses Should Know.”)

Social media legal experts and various literature point to a multitude of issues and risks faced by both the CRA and the employer who uses social media checks, which include, but are not limited to:

  • Problems under FCRA section 607(b) in exercising “reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy” of the information.
    Since the information on social media sites is self-reported and can be changed at any time, it is often difficult if not impossible to ascertain that the information is accurate, authentic and belongs to the subject. Online identity theft is not uncommon, as are postings under another person’s name for the purpose of “cyber–slamming” (which refers to online defamation, slander, bullying, harassment, etc.)
  • Information may be discriminatory to job candidates or employees, or in violation of anti-retaliation laws.
    Social sites and postings may reveal protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA,) and protected class information under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and other federal laws, such as race, age, creed, nationality, ancestry, medical condition, disability, marital status, gender, sexual preference, labor union affiliations, certain social interests, or political associations. And while the information may have no impact on the employment decision, the fact that the information was accessed may support claims for discrimination, retaliation or harassment.
  • Accessing the information may be in violation of the federal Stored Communications Act (SCA).
    To the extent that an employer requests or requires an employee’s login or password information, searches of social networking sites may implicate the SCA (18 U.S.C. § 2701) and comparable state laws which prohibit access to stored electronic communications without valid authorization. A California court recently ruled that the SCA also may protect an employee’s private information on social networking sites from discovery in civil litigation.
  • Assessing the information may violate terms of use agreements and privacy rights.
    While certain social media sites have stricter privacy controls than others, most if not all limit the use of their content. The terms of use agreements typically state that the information is for “personal use only” and not for “commercial” purposes. Although the definition of “commercial” in connection with employment purposes is interpretive, most legal experts indicate that employment screening fits that scope.
  • Information may be subjective and irrelevant to the employment decision.
    Blogs, photos and similar postings often do not provide an objective depiction of the subject or predict job performance. The California Labor Code, for example, specifically provides that an employer is prevented from making employment-related decisions based on an employee’s legal off-duty conduct. Employers may use such information only if the off-duty conduct is illegal, if it presents a conflict of interest to the business or if it adversely affects the employee’s ability to do his/her job. And the evidence of such activities must be clear.

The popularity of employment-related background checks that include social media searches is growing rapidly. But the unreliable and unverifiable information from these sources is a potential landmine of legal liabilities.

August 8th, 2011|Employment Decisions|

Scraped information for sale to employers

Employers legally can’t discriminate based on gender, race and other factors which they may get from social-media profiles, but some indeed are using such data in their employment decisions. Media sources reported that scraping for employment purposes is growing, and that an employment screening company in Florida began offering limited social-networking data, including some that is scraped, about a year ago. Scrapers operate in a legal gray area. Internationally, anti-scraping laws vary, and in the U.S., court rulings have been contradictory. Media reports quoted Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University saying: “Scraping is ubiquitous, but questionable. Everyone does it, but it’s not totally clear that anyone is allowed to do it without permission.”

December 23rd, 2010|Educational Series, Employment Decisions|

No background check was done on Michael Jackson’s doctor

Media sources reported that among several wrongful death lawsuits filed by the Jackson family, is a September 2010 action against event production company AEG Live and others alleging that they are responsible for the singer’s death because his “This Is It” tour contract with AEG created a legal duty to keep him healthy.

In its complaint, among other causes, the Jackson family accuses AEG of “negligent hiring” and retention of Dr. Conrad Murray to care for Jackson instead of his usual doctor. Earlier this year, prosecutors charged Murray with involuntary manslaughter, to which he pleaded not guilty. The doctor is accused of administering the drug Propofol to Jackson without the necessary resuscitation equipment or nursing support, and subsequently causing his death. The ‘Negligent Hiring’ cause of action in the complaint filed in Los Angeles County states:

“In undertaking to hire Murray, AEG performed absolutely no diligence in investigating or checking into Murray’s background, specialties, ability, or even whether he was insured, which it had a duty to do. In choosing to hire and employ a physician to treat Jackson, AEG undertook to act, and it needed to do so reasonably. AEG did not act reasonably and breached its duty.”

“During the course of Murray’s treatment, it became clear to AEG that Jackson was not doing well at all. AEG did nothing to terminate Murray and instead negligently retained him as an employee, and in so doing violated its duty of care. AEG insisted that Jackson continue treatment with Murray and receive no treatment from other physicians, a further breach of its duty of supervision.”

Along with negligent hiring, training and supervision, the complaint calls for unspecified damages for breach of contract, fraud, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. And in the most recent case filed November 30, 2010 in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Joe Jackson is also claiming negligent hiring, training and supervision and negligence by the Murray-affiliated clinics and negligence against the pharmacy (and Murray.) A similar suit filed this past June did not include the pharmacy, and was dismissed.

Shortly after Michael Jackson’s death, ABC News reported that Murray was arrested on domestic violence charges in 1994 after an incident with his then-girlfriend. The doctor was tried and acquitted. When a company fails to conduct a background check, the employer can be held legally liable for a worker, independent contractor or volunteer who causes injury to a customer, co-worker or the general public. Whether the individual was acting within the capacity of the job for which he/she was hired does not matter. The legal theory is that even if an employer did not possess direct knowledge of the liability posed by an employee, the company is legally responsible because the employer should have known about the threat presented by the individual. Currently, fewer than 50% of the states uphold the doctrine of negligent hiring, and the criteria for determining negligent hiring differ from state to state.

December 8th, 2010|Criminal Activity, Educational Series, Employment Decisions, Lawsuit|
© 2012- SCHERZER INTERNATIONAL | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Go to Top