ORDER A REPORT
SECURE FILE UPLOAD

Employment law is the comprehensive legal framework that regulates the employment relationship, including how employers hire, manage, compensate, discipline, and terminate workers. It consists of federal and state statutes, regulations, and court decisions that establish standards for wages and hours, workplace safety, discrimination, employee benefits, family and medical leave, immigration‑related work authorization, and workers’ rights.

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, employment law encompasses major labor standards such as the Fair Labor Standards Act (minimum wage and overtime), OSHA (workplace safety), ERISA (retirement and benefits), FMLA (family and medical leave), and protections for migrant workers . The Legal Information Institute adds that employment law also includes civil rights protections, disability rights, unemployment benefits, and post‑employment benefits .

Hidden Liability Gaps in Employment Screening Programs

Many organizations take comfort in knowing their background screening program is “compliant.” Policies are in place, disclosures are issued, and adverse action steps are followed. But in today’s regulatory environment, baseline compliance is not always sufficient to protect against real-world risk. In fact, some of the most significant liabilities arise not from outright noncompliance, but from misinterpretation, inconsistency, and overreliance on outdated assumptions.

The Illusion of Compliance

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), state and local laws, and EEOC guidance are often more nuanced than they appear. Organizations that rely on templated processes or static interpretations can unknowingly expose themselves to risk. Being technically compliant on paper does not always mean practices will withstand regulatory scrutiny, litigation, or evolving interpretations of fairness and equity.

Common Hidden Gaps

  • Misinterpreting the FCRA, state, and local law requirements
    FCRA and state and local law compliance is often reduced to a checklist: disclosure, authorization, applicable notices, pre-adverse action, and adverse action. However, issues frequently arise in the details, such as improperly formatted or combined disclosures, timing of criminal record checks, errors in adverse action workflows, and inconsistent application across candidate populations. Even small deviations can lead to class action exposure, particularly when applied at scale.
  • Overlooking EEOC nuances
    EEOC guidance emphasizes individualized assessment and the avoidance of policies that create disparate impact. Yet many organizations still rely on blanket disqualification criteria, rigid decision matrices, or insufficient documentation of hiring decisions. The risk isn’t just noncompliance–it’s the appearance of systemic bias, which can trigger investigations or claims.
  • Global inconsistencies
    For organizations operating internationally, screening programs often become fragmented. Differing privacy standards (GDPR and local data laws), varying permissible checks by country, and inconsistent vendor practices all contribute to risk. What is acceptable in one jurisdiction may be restricted or prohibited in another, creating exposure across borders.

Where Liability Emerges

The most significant risks tend to arise in areas such as:

  • Process inconsistency across roles, regions, or recruiters
  • Lack of documentation supporting decision-making
  • Vendor misalignment with internal compliance standards
  • Outdated policies that no longer reflect current enforcement priorities

Moving Beyond “Checkbox Compliance”

Defensibility comes from demonstrating that your program is consistent, well documented, and adaptable to evolving standards. A more holistic risk management strategy should include:

  • Regular review and updates of policies to reflect current guidance and case law
  • Audit of screening processes for consistency and documentation integrity
  • Training hiring teams on nuanced decision-making, not just procedures
  • Aligning with screening partners who understand both regulatory requirements and practical risk

 

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.

June 11th, 2026|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , , , |

The New York Clean Slate Act

What is this about?
The New York State Clean Slate Act (the “Act”) will allow certain state criminal records to be sealed from public access once an individual completes their sentence and after a specified period passes without another conviction. This statewide law makes it unlawful for employers to inquire about or use sealed convictions against applicants or employees (unless required by law).

Effective Date:
November 16, 2024

What this means:
Under the Act, individuals who have completed their sentence (including probation and parole time) will have their records automatically sealed, as follows:
• Eligible misdemeanor convictions are to be sealed three years after the completion of the sentence.
• Eligible felony convictions are to be sealed eight years after the completion of the sentence.

What else:
It is still being determined whether sealed records will be removed from public access in New York. Also, delayed implementation may occur for budgetary reasons, meaning that “automatically sealed” records may still be publicly available. If criminal record information is obtained from other sources (such as disclosure by the subject, media, or motor vehicle record) we will continue to verify it with information from the relevant New York court. If no correlating court record is found, we will assume the record was sealed and is, therefore, not reportable.

NYC’s Fair Chance Act & the Two-Step Process:
The Clean Slate Act does not change a New York City employer’s obligation under the city’s Fair Chance Act (FCA), which offers more expansive protections to individuals with criminal backgrounds. Our current procedures for complying with the FCA remain unchanged.

October 15th, 2024|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , |

LA County Fair Chance Ordinance becomes operational September 3, 2024


What is this about?
On February 27, 2024, the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors voted to adopt the County’s Fair Chance Ordinance for Employers (FCO). The FCO aligns with the California Fair Chance Act (FCA), also known as “Ban the Box.” However, it adds several compliance requirements when considering the applicant’s criminal record history to make an employment decision.

Effective Date:The FCO is operative on September 3, 2024.

Who must comply:
The FCO applies to any “employer” located or doing business in the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County who employs five or more employees regardless of location. The FCO protects both applicants seeking employment and employees seeking promotions, as well as others seeking non-traditional employment, such as contract or freelance work.

New requirements:
Notice of Intent to Conduct Background Check.
This notice must be given along with any conditional offer of employment to the applicant or employee that states (1) the conditional offer is contingent upon a review of a criminal record history and (2) the employer has good cause to conduct the criminal history review “for the specific job position with supporting justification in writing.” It is not enough for the employer to merely state it reviews such information because of a generalized “safety concern.” Specific information is required.

Before employers can take any adverse action against an individual, such as rescinding a conditional job offer, the FCO requires the employer to (1) prepare a written individualized assessment of an applicant’s criminal history in the manner required by the FCO; (2) provide a form of preliminary notice of adverse action with mandatory content; (3) provide a second written individualized assessment if the individual provides information in response to the preliminary notice of adverse action; and (4) provide a final notice of adverse action if the employer makes a final decision to withdraw the conditional offer of employment or take any other adverse action (the final notice must also include mandatory content).

Why compliance matters:
The FCO authorizes public and private remedies, including civil claims. The County of Los Angeles Department of Consumer and Business Affairs (DCBA) is authorized to take appropriate steps to enforce the FCO and conduct investigations of possible violations by an employer. The DCBA may issue monetary penalties of up to $5,000 for the first violation, up to $10,000 for the second violation, and up to $20,000 for the third and subsequent violations.

How SI can help:
SI can help ensure compliance in several ways, including the timing of background checks, the distribution of mandatory and sample notices, and the monitoring of the required time periods for taking adverse action.

August 29th, 2024|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , , |

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

District of Columbia: Limitations on Reporting Negative Information in Background Checks Used for Employment Purposes

Although several states have laws analogous to the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the District of Columbia does not. As a rule, the District of Columbia follows the federal FCRA regarding the limitations on reporting negative information in background check reports used for employment purposes. However, there are three notable exceptions where district law differs from the FCRA regarding reporting criminal records:

(1)        Records of arrests or criminal accusations that did not result in a conviction cannot be reported (unless the charges are pending);

(2)        Inquiries about criminal convictions cannot be made unless a conditional offer of employment is made; and

(3)        Convictions with a completed sentence that is more than 10 years old cannot be reported.

The first two exceptions are found in the district’s Fair Criminal Record Screening Amendment Act of 2014 codified at Sections 32-1341 – 32-1346 of the Code of District of Columbia, and the third exception is found in Section 2–1402.66 of the district’s Human Rights Law.

April 25th, 2022|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , , |

Are independent contractors considered employees under the FCRA?

Unfortunately, there is no clear answer.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in its most recent staff report (in 2011) states that “employment purpose” is interpreted broadly and may apply to situations where individuals are not technically employees. Reports on consumers who are clearly not employees under traditional common law principles can nevertheless be construed as consumer reports for employment purposes.

It is up to the employer to determine the purpose of the background check based on its particular facts and circumstances. Some points to consider include:

1) Is the individual free from control and direction in connection with the performance of the service?

2) Is the service performed outside of the usual course of business of the employer?

3) Is the individual customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business of the same nature as that involved in the service performed?

If the answer is “yes,” then most likely a report on the individual would not be under the FCRA’s employment purpose.

While a few recent district court decisions have held that the FCRA employment purpose does not apply to contractors, the FTC has not budged on its stance that employees and nontraditional workers alike are protected under the FCRA.

Where there are gray areas, the conservative approach is to follow the employment purpose requirements but modify disclosure and authorization forms and other documents to reflect an independent contractor status.

April 13th, 2022|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , |

New York Civil Cases and the RJI

State courts often have some quirky procedures, and the New York Supreme Court is no exception. Civil records from the New York Supreme Court typically include a reference to an “RJI” and whether it has been filed. What does “RJI” mean?

Definition: RJI is an abbreviation for “Request for Judicial Intervention.” It’s a form that is filed by either a plaintiff or defendant sometime after the summons and complaint is served on the defendant in a civil case.

Filing Effect: When an RJI is filed, the civil case is assigned to a judge.

What does this mean? When a plaintiff files a complaint in the New York Supreme Court to start a civil case, the court’s only action is to assign the case an index number. The court will not take any other action regarding the case – such as deciding a motion or order to show cause or hold a conference or trial – until either the plaintiff or defendant files an RJI. When the RJI is filed, the case is assigned randomly to a judge who will decide everything in the case until it is over.

How long will a case stay in the pre-RJI status? Because New York law does not specify a time limit for pre-RJI status, a civil case could be pending for years without any activity showing on the publicly available docket other than the filing and service of the summons and complaint.

That is the quirk in the New York Supreme Court civil case procedures – the possibility of a lengthy period of no case activity during the pre-RJI status.

To ensure that a civil case is timely prosecuted, many state courts assign a judge to a civil case when the summons and complaint are filed.

March 21st, 2022|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , |

How to consider sex offender registry records in California (Updated)

For California employers concerned about hiring sex offenders, there are a few important points to keep in mind.

An employer has a duty to keep the workplace free of sexual harassment and other forms of discrimination under state law. Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), an employer can face significant liability if it knowingly employs a sex offender and fails to take actions to protect its other employees from unlawful behavior by that person.

To avoid this problem, employers would like to know if they are hiring a registered sex offender. But how can they find out?

Since 2005, the state has operated a Megan’s Law website with a database to obtain access to the state’s list of more than 100,000 registered sex offenders. Created to help state residents better protect their families by being able to search for an individual registrant or by geographic location, the site (https://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/Default.aspx) contains the sex offender’s name, aliases, age, gender, race, address, physical description and, in some cases, a photograph.

While the site would appear to be a boon for employers, state law expressly forbids use of the state’s sex offender registry information for employment purposes. California Penal Code section 209.46(l)(2)(E) prohibits the use of information disclosed on the website for purposes relating to health insurance, insurance, loans, credit, education, housing and employment, among other uses.

Statutory exceptions provide for use “to protect a person at risk,” a term not defined by the Penal Code, as well as for employers required by law or authorized to request criminal history from the California Department of Justice. Examples of businesses that meet this standard may include child care centers, financial institutions and governmental agencies.

An employer who runs afoul of the Penal Code’s prohibition can face actual and exemplary damages, attorneys’ fees and a civil fine. Legislative history explains that the website attempts to protect the public while not inflicting additional punishment on registrants.

For employers trying to walk the fine line of protecting other employees and third parties, such as customers, from potential sex offender registrant employees while not violating the Penal Code, two alternate avenues exist to try to find out information about a sex offender: conviction records and employee/applicant self-disclosure.

Following applicable state and federal law, employers can conduct a criminal background check on applicants and employees and learn of a sex offense conviction. (However, convictions past the seven-year cut-off date in California may not appear on a background check report while the individual may still appear in the sex offender registry). An applicant or employee may also self-disclose a conviction.

Providing another wrinkle for California employers, the state’s Fair Chance Act took effect on January 1, 2018, mandating that employers with five or more employees must wait until after a conditional offer of employment has been made to ask any questions about criminal history. This includes inquiries about convictions, running a background check or other efforts to find out about an applicant’s criminal past.

If the employer decides not to hire the applicant, it must conduct an individualized assessment of the conviction at issue to evaluate whether it has a “direct and adverse relationship with the specific duties of the job that justify denying the applicant the position.” Other legal requirements, based on both state and federal law, must also be satisfied if an employer takes an adverse action on the basis of the background check (see our prior blog post (https://scherzer.co/reminder-to-california-employers-about-requirements-when-taking-adverse-action-based-on-a-criminal-record/) for more details).

What if an employer learns that an employee is a registered sex offender from another employee’s perusal of the Megan’s Law website? This situation could trigger liability under section 290.46 and employers should be careful to take action only after evaluating any potential risk the sex offender employee may pose to coworkers or customers, considering all the facts and circumstances.

March 17th, 2022|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , |

Consent for International Searches

A basic principle of conducting international searches on an individual is that you need a lawful basis for processing personal data. This principle applies to both employment-purpose and commercial background checks.

Although the number and type of lawful bases vary from one country to another (especially with the enactment of new data protection and privacy laws in many countries over the last several years), a lawful basis for processing personal data common to all international searches is the consent of the individual search subject. From a compliance perspective, obtaining an individual’s consent for the searches is the best practice.

Other than the requirements that the subject’s express consent be unambiguous and freely given, there is no universally prescribed format or wording for an international consent form.

If the subject’s consent cannot be obtained, you can look to a country’s data protection and privacy laws to determine if a different legal basis may be applicable for processing personal data that does not require the subject’s consent. It is always up to the controller of the data to determine the appropriate legal basis for processing personal data.

For individuals located in the EU or UK, there are several legal bases that will satisfy the compliance requirements under the EU GDPR, the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act of 2018 (UK) if consent cannot be obtained. The controller can still request these searches if it has a legitimate interest in obtaining the individual’s personal data or needs the data to perform a contract.

If the request for the searches is based on a legitimate interest or performance of a contract, the individual must receive a notice of the controller’s intention to process the data. Notice can be given in several different ways, including directly to the individual, in an engagement letter or similar document, or by publication on the client’s website. The way the controller gives notice is their decision.

February 25th, 2022|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , |

Reporting Employment-related Civil Lawsuits

For employment-purpose reports, the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and its state law counterparts  are the laws that most often deal with when determining whether certain information is or isn’t reportable. However, federal laws prohibiting workplace discrimination can also limit what information can be included in these reports. This issue can arise when civil lawsuits are located in which a search subject has sued a former employer.

Although there are several types of federal laws dealing with workplace discrimination, taken together, these laws make it illegal to discriminate against someone (applicant or employee) because of that person’s race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to retaliate against a person because they complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.

Providing any such information to a prospective employer in a background screening report could be a violation of anti-discrimination laws which are typically enforced by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

February 17th, 2022|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , |
© 2012- SCHERZER INTERNATIONAL | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Go to Top