ORDER A REPORT
SECURE FILE UPLOAD

Employment decisions refer to any employer actions that determine, influence, or change the terms, conditions, or outcomes of employment. This includes decisions about recruitment, hiring, promotion, reassigning, evaluating performance, disciplining, terminating, setting wages, or assigning work hours. These decisions are legally significant because they must comply with federal and state employment laws, including anti‑discrimination rules enforced by the EEOC.

Another lawsuit reminds employers about FCRA disclosure/authorization requirements

A recently filed class action NDC Ca. No. (4:14-cv-00592-DMR, 2-7-14) is a reminder to employers that under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (the “FCRA”) their disclosure and authorization form to the applicant/employee for obtaining a background check must be in a standalone document, and cannot contain confusing or extraneous information. The lawsuit alleges that the defendant employer used an invalid form to obtain consent to conduct background checks, that it relied on an authorization that was included alongside several other consent paragraphs in an online employment application, and that the consent form contained a release of liability related to obtaining the background check. Two published court decisions already ruled that including a liability waiver constitutes a technical violation under the FCRA. (WD Pa. 2013, No. 2:08-cv-01730-MRH, and Dist. Md., 2012, No. 8:11-cv-01823-DKC.)

March 28th, 2014|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , |

Proposed federal bill bans credit checks in employment decisions

Introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass) on December 17, 2013, the “Equal Employment for All Act” (S. 1837), would amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to prohibit employers from requiring or suggesting that applicants disclose their credit history, from procuring a consumer or investigative report, and from disqualifying employees based on a poor credit rating, or information on a consumer’s creditworthiness, standing or capacity. Positions that require a national security clearance or “when otherwise required by law” are exempt from the prohibition. Ten states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington) already have enacted legislation that limits the use of credit reports for employment purposes.

January 17th, 2014|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , |

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|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , |

From hair styles to criminal records, increased employment regulations to continue

Recent enforcement efforts by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”) combined with some local and state “ban-the-box” laws are causing trepidation among employers who must not only consider, but also apparently hire, applicants with a criminal history and unprofessional hairstyles.

The EEOC recently filed a lawsuit in Alabama alleging that an insurance claims company violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by discriminating against an African-American applicant because she wore dreadlocks. The EEOC’s position is that the company’s policy of requiring a professional/business look “focuses on the racial bias that may occur when specific hair constructs and styles are singled out for different treatment because they do not conform to normative standards for other races.”

The EEOC has also pushed its position that considering criminal convictions in hiring decisions can be racially discriminatory, issuing its well-publicized guidance and filing lawsuits against employers that use background checks. Based on EEOC’s logic, Massachusetts and Hawaii already have adopted “ban the box” laws that apply to both private and public employers, and on January 1, 2014, similar measures will take effect in Rhode Island and Minnesota. The cities of Buffalo, NY, Newark, NJ, Seattle, WA, and Philadelphia, PA, also have passed similar legislation affecting private employers. Many more states and municipalities have “ban-the-box” laws that apply only to public employers. (Generally, “ban-the-box” legislation calls for the removal of the criminal history box/question on the job application, and prohibits employers from asking about criminal records in the initial application process.)

Win or lose, the EEOC is unlikely to let up, and the trend of increased employment regulations will continue into 2014, according to legal commentators. Employers should review their policies and procedures at least annually to ensure that they meet EEOC’s guidelines, comply with all federal, state and local laws and regulations, are fair and consistent and aligned with the business model.

December 9th, 2013|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , , , |

Issuers should ensure that investors are not criminals

The JOBS Act requires that issuers wishing to engage in general solicitation take “reasonable steps” to verify the accredited investor status of purchasers. Rule 506(c) sets forth a principles-based method of verification which requires an objective determination by the issuer or its representatives that the steps taken are “reasonable” in the context of the particular facts and circumstances of each purchaser and transaction. But perhaps a question whether the investor is a felon should be added to the list.

A case decided in 2011 by California’s Court of Appeal, Second District, suggests that indeed it may be prudent for issuers to ensure that investors are not criminals. The plaintiff in this case intended to purchase units in a limited liability company, but was rejected after the mezzanine lender would not accept the plaintiff as a member due to his status as a former felon. The plaintiff subsequently sued the lender, alleging a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. After a dismissal by a trial court, the case was appealed, resulting in a conclusion that  (1) status as a felon is not a personal characteristic similar to those enumerated in the statute; (2) criminal convictions raised legitimate questions about the honesty and trustworthiness of the plaintiff, and the lender had legitimate business reasons justifying its decision; and (3) the potential consequences of allowing the plaintiff’s claim would improperly involve the courts in second-guessing a lending institution‘s expertise in determining loan and investment criteria. As lenders are absolved from potential liability under the Act, issuers who unwittingly accept convicted felons as investors may be jeopardizing their funding.

October 25th, 2013|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , |

Grace period for E-Verify compliance ends November 5, 2013

Now that E-Verify services are back online, employers must create an E-Verify case for each employee hired during the shutdown (October 1-17, 2013) no later than November 5, 2013. When prompted by the E-Verify system to explain why the case was initiated late (a violation of the three-day E-Verify rule), employers should select “other” from the drop-down menu and enter into the text field “federal government shutdown.” See the USCIS E-Verify instructions page for handling specific situations.

October 25th, 2013|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , |

New Jersey enacts law for social media password protection

Continuing a nationwide momentum of restricting employers’ access to personal social media content of applicants and employees, in August 2013, New Jersey passed Act 2878 joining eleven other states (Maryland, Illinois, California, Michigan, Utah, New Mexico, Arkansas, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and Nevada) with similar laws. Dozens more states and the U.S. Congress are considering comparable legislation. New Jersey’s new law, which becomes effective December 1, 2013, prohibits employers from asking or requiring that applicants or employees “provide or disclose any user name or password, or in any way provide the employer access to a personal account through an electronic communications device.”

September 12th, 2013|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , |

EEOC fails to prove disparate impact in another case involving background checks

In August 2013, a Maryland federal judge dismissed without a trial a putative suit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”) against event-promoter Freeman for alleged discriminatory background screening practices. Calling the EEOC’s expert report “an egregious example of scientific dishonesty,” the court granted a summary judgment to Freeman based on its findings that the EEOC’s expert testimony was unreliable, and would not support a claim of disparate impact. According to the court’s opinion, the EEOC failed to establish an element of its case when it made no effort to analyze Freeman’s multi-step screening policies to identify the specific practices that caused the alleged disparate impact. The court went on to say: “By bringing actions of this nature, the EEOC has placed many employers in the ‘Hobson’s choice’ of ignoring criminal history and credit backgrounds, thus exposing themselves to potential liability for criminal and fraudulent acts committed by employees, or, on the other hand, incurring the wrath of the EEOC for having utilized information deemed fundamental by most employers.”

The EEOC most likely will appeal the decision, as it has done in another high-profile background check case in Ohio, where in January 2013 the court similarly ruled  that the EEOC failed to prove disparate impact. Although these rulings represent a victory for the employer, the EEOC has not reversed its position, and is expected to continue its attempts to severely limit, if not eliminate, the use of criminal and credit checks by private employers.

September 12th, 2013|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , |

Rhode Island is the latest state to “ban the box”

On July 16, 2013, Rhode Island’s SB357 was signed into law, making it the eighth state to pass “ban the box” legislation. Effective January 1, 2014, the law, with a few exceptions, will make it an “unlawful employment practice” for an employer in the state to inquire whether an applicant has ever been convicted of a crime before the first interview. In “banning the box” for private  employers, Rhode Island follows on the heels of Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Minnesota, as well as the cities of Seattle, Buffalo, Philadelphia, and Newark. And many more jurisdictions have already “banned the box” for public employers and public contractors, and even more have some form of the legislation under consideration. Congress too is pondering its federal HR 6220 or “Ban the Box Act” introduced last July, which similar to these state and local laws, would make it illegal for an employer to ask about criminal history in an interview or on an employment application.

July 23rd, 2013|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , , |

Virginia takes workers’ privacy to a new level

Starting July 1, 2013, new Virginia Code §40.1-28.7:4 provides that “employers shall not, unless a listed exemption applies, be required to release, communicate, or distribute to a third-party, any current or former employee’s personal identifying information.”

In this context, “personal identifying information” is defined as a “home telephone number, mobile telephone number, e-mail address, shift times, or work schedule.”  Exceptions permitting the disclosure of such information include requirements of federal laws that supersede state statutes, court orders, judicial warrants or a subpoena in a civil or criminal case. Although there is no penalty, the statute establishes a public policy that endorses protection of the personal identifying information and could be used in a lawsuit against employers.

June 27th, 2013|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , , |
© 2012- SCHERZER INTERNATIONAL | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Go to Top