FCRA

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|

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|Compliance Corner, Guidance|

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|Compliance Corner, Employment Decisions|

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|Compliance Corner|

Does New York law require notice to the employee in order to have a consumer reporting agency conduct a background check in connection with the employee’s misconduct?

The NY FCRA sets forth notice and authorization requirements for investigative consumer reports as shown in “https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2017/gbs/article-25/380-c/” NY Gen Bus L § 380-C. However, this section is silent on the issue of employee misconduct investigations and we found no language in NY FCRA law that is analogous to the federal FCRA exemption for employee misconduct investigations as provided in 15 U.S.C.1681a(y)(1).

When analyzing this question, we reviewed a 2006 opinion by the Oklahoma Attorney General that addressed a very similar issue. A state senator wanted to know whether OK employers could rely on the FACTA amendment to the federal FCRA that provides the exemption for employee misconduct investigations and dispense with the OK notice requirements for consumer reports. The OK AG said “no,” the reason being that the OK statute (which specifically references the previously enacted federal FCRA) was enacted before FACTA and the OK legislature did not indicate in the statute that amendments to the original FCRA would also be adopted.

Of course, the AG opinion is not a binding law anywhere, including in OK. But it does show how the issue may be analyzed to the detriment of the employer if it arose in litigation. Like the OK statute, the NY FCRA was enacted well before the FACTA amendment in 2003 (NY FCRA was enacted in 1977). However, unlike the OK statute, the NY FCRA does not include any references to the federal FCRA and, therefore, does not rely on any of its language as originally enacted. That is a distinction that can undermine an OK AG-type analysis to the NY FCRA.

The most we can say is that the NY FCRA does not address employee misconduct investigations and that the federal FCRA does set forth an express exemption from its notice requirements for such investigations. Whether there is a conflict between the NY notice requirements (or any other state’s notice requirements) and the federal exemption for employee misconduct investigations remains to be seen and there are no court opinions addressing the issue.

In the absence of guidance from NY FCRA regarding employee misconduct investigations, the employer can follow the federal FCRA exemption for these investigations. It would be prudent for the employer to document the need for confidentiality of the investigation, specifying the reasons why alerting the employee would undermine the investigation.

December 20th, 2021|Compliance Corner|

2021 UPDATE OF FCRA LITIGATION AND THE EFFECT ON EMPLOYMENT BACKGROUND SCREENING

Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) lawsuits continue to rise with the number of complaints filed in federal courts showing a +5.3% increase in 2020 over 2019[1]. This continues a trend for FCRA litigation as it has consistently shown year-over-year growth since 2010. An issue that garners much attention in FCRA litigation is whether an employer’s disclosure and authorization forms violate the FCRA. Two federal appellate decisions address this issue and provide important guidance for employers on how to draft FCRA disclosure and authorization forms.

FCRA Disclosure and Authorization Forms

Employers that want to obtain a background check report about a job applicant or current employee must comply with the FCRA and provide to the individual a standalone document with a clear and conspicuous disclosure of the employer’s intention to do so, and obtain the individual’s authorization. By way of background, the principal appellate opinion on disclosure and authorization forms is the Ninth Circuit’s Gilberg v. California Check Cashing Stores, LLC, No. No. 17-16263 (January 2019). The Gilberg opinion made clear that any extraneous information in an FCRA disclosure form violates the FCRA’s requirement that the disclosure must be “in a document that consists solely of the disclosure” (the standalone requirement). The employer in Gilberg was found to have violated the standalone requirement by:

Combining the authorization and disclosure into one document; and
Including several state-related disclosures in the form.

Two important cases from 2020 that further addressed the requirements and limitations for the content of an FCRA disclosure form were issued by the Ninth Circuit in Walker v. Fred Meyer, Inc., No. 18-35592 (March 20, 2020) and Luna v. Hansen & Adkins Transport, Inc., No. 18-55804, (April 24, 2020).

In Walker v. Fred Meyer, the court indicated that background check disclosures may contain some concise explanatory language, but there is a limit to what is explanatory and what is unlawfully extraneous. Among other allegations, the plaintiff in Walker claimed that the FCRA disclosure violated the standalone requirement because, in addition to mentioning consumer reports, it also mentioned investigative consumer reports (a type of consumer report). The Ninth Circuit rejected this claim and ruled that mentioning investigative background checks in the disclosure does not violate the FCRA’s standalone requirement because investigative consumer reports are a subcategory or specific type of consumer report and as long as the investigative background check disclosures are limited to (1) disclosing that such reports may be obtained for employment purposes and (2) providing a very brief description of what that means.

The Ninth Circuit reviewed the employer’s disclosure in Walker in detail, which consisted of five paragraphs, and held that the first three paragraphs did not violate the standalone requirement, but that the last two paragraphs did because they may pull the individual’s attention away from their privacy rights protected by the FCRA. Here are the offending paragraphs in their entirety:

“You may inspect GIS’s files about you (in person, by mail, or by phone) by providing identification to GIS. If you do, GIS will provide you help to understand the files, including communication with trained personnel and an explanation of any codes. Another person may accompany you by providing identification.”

“If GIS obtains any information by interview, you have the right to obtain a complete and accurate disclosure of the scope and nature of the investigation performed.”

The plaintiff in Walker also claimed that the language of the employer’s authorization form, which was in a separate document was confusing and underscored the confusing and distracting nature of disclosure form, thus violating the FCRA’s standalone requirement. The Ninth Circuit rejected this argument because it found that the authorization form is not relevant to the FCRA disclosure form’s standalone requirement where the authorization is not included in the disclosure and is in a separate authorization form.

In Luna v. Hansen, the plaintiff claimed that the FCRA’s physical standalone requirement for hard-copy forms was a temporal one, i.e., the disclosure form should be presented to the individual separate from all other employment-related forms. The plaintiff in Luna had received one packet containing all forms. The Ninth Circuit rejected this argument and held that as long as the background check disclosure itself is in a standalone form, it can be presented with and at the same time as other employment documents.

Key Takeaways

Given the steady uptick in FCRA litigation, it is advisable for employers to review their FCRA disclosure and authorization forms on at least a yearly basis, or whenever important appellate opinions are issued, to ensure compliance with the FCRA. The attached forms from the Gilberg and Walker opinions provide clear examples of what to avoid in FCRA disclosure forms. In general, the guidance provided in the above-referenced opinions indicate that:

background check disclosure forms may contain some concise explanatory language, but there is a limit to what is explanatory and what is unlawfully extraneous;
background check disclosure forms may be presented at the same time as other materials, including application materials, as long as the background check disclosures are on a separate form; and
language in a separate authorization form has no impact on the disclosure form’s compliance with the FCRA standalone requirement.

[1] WebRecon Stats for Dec 2020 and Year in Review

Disclaimer: This communication is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. 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.

March 23rd, 2021|Employment Decisions, Guidance, Judgment, Lawsuit|

The CFPB issues new policy guidance on credit reporting and dispute resolution

On April 1, 2020, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB” or “Bureau”) issued a non-binding general policy statement (“Policy Statement”) regarding the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and Regulation V in light of the recently enacted Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act).

The CFPB’s Policy Statement highlights furnishers’ responsibilities and informs consumer reporting agencies (“CRAs”) of the Bureau’s flexible supervisory and enforcement approach during this pandemic. The Bureau intends to consider the circumstances that entities face as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and their good faith efforts to comply with statutory and regulatory obligations as soon as possible.

The Bureau believes that this flexibility will help furnishers and CRAs to manage the challenges of the current crisis. Below are examples of the flexibility the Bureau intends to provide in the consumer reporting system.

Furnishing consumer information impacted by COVID-19: The Bureau reiterates its prior guidance encouraging financial institutions to work constructively with borrowers and other customers affected by COVID-19 to meet their financial needs. While companies generally are not legally obligated to furnish information to CRAs, the Bureau encourages them to continue doing so despite the current crisis. Furnishers’ providing accurate information to CRAs produces substantial benefits for consumers, users of consumer reports, and the economy as a whole. The CARES Act, a section of which amends the FCRA, generally requires furnishers to report as current certain credit obligations for which furnishers make payment accommodations to consumers affected by COVID-19 who have sought such accommodations from their lenders. Many furnishers are or will be offering consumers affected by COVID-19 various forms of payment flexibility, including allowing consumers to defer or skip payments, as required by the CARES Act or voluntarily. Such payment accommodations will avoid the reporting of delinquencies resulting from the effects of COVID-19. The Bureau supports furnishers’ voluntary efforts to provide payment relief, and it does not intend to cite in examinations or take enforcement actions against those who furnish information to CRAs that accurately reflects the payment relief measures they are employing.

Disputes: The FCRA generally requires that CRAs and furnishers investigate disputes within 30 days of receipt of the consumer’s dispute. The 30-day period may be extended to 45 days if the consumer provides additional information that is relevant to the investigation during the 30-day period. The Bureau is aware that some CRAs and furnishers may face significant operational disruptions that pose challenges in the investigations. For example, some CRAs and furnishers may experience reductions in staff, difficulty in taking disputes, or lack of access to necessary information, rendering them unable to investigate the disputes within the timeframes the FCRA requires. Furnishers include a wide variety of businesses that vary in size and sophistication and can range from small retailers to very large financial services firms, each of which will face unique challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In evaluating compliance with the FCRA as a result of the pandemic, the Bureau will consider a CRA’s or furnisher’s individual circumstances and does not intend to cite in an examination or bring an enforcement action against a CRA or furnisher making good faith efforts to investigate disputes as quickly as possible, even if dispute investigations take longer than the statutory timeframe. The Bureau reminds furnishers and CRAs that they may take advantage of statutory and regulatory provisions that eliminate the obligation to investigate disputes submitted by credit repair organizations and disputes they reasonably determine to be frivolous or irrelevant. The Bureau will consider the current constraints on furnishers’ and CRAs’ time, information, and other resources in assessing if such a determination is reasonable.

Regulatory requirements: The Policy Statement is a non-binding general statement of policy articulating considerations relevant to the Bureau’s exercise of its supervisory and enforcement authorities. It is therefore exempt from the notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act pursuant to 5 USC 553(b).

Resources for consumers and small businesses facing the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic are available on the Bureau’s website at https://www.consumerfinance.gov/coronavirus/.

April 3rd, 2020|Guidance|

Independent contractors and the FCRA

Must employers provide the protections required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to prospective independent contractors?

Not according to a new decision from an Iowa court (see Smith v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company, No. 4:17-cv-00443 (S.D. Iowa Oct. 4, 2018)) which grappled with the question in the context of a lawsuit filed by an individual against an insurance company where he applied to contract as a salesperson but was rejected because of a falsely reported felony in his background check. The plaintiff accused the insurance company of violating the FCRA by failing to provide him with the statutorily required prior notice that the background check resulted in his not being hired.

The insurance company asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming that the FCRA only requires such notice when an applicant seeks to be hired as an employee, and not as an independent contractor. Since the plaintiff applied for an independent contractor position, he was not entitled to the protections of the statute, the insurance company argued.

The plaintiff countered that he was applying to be an employee of the insurance company and that it was too early to dismiss the case, as further discovery was needed. In the alternative, he argued that the FCRA should still govern his relationship even as an independent contractor.

In ruling on the FCRA issue, Judge John Jarvey began with the language of the law. The FCRA is a broad statute, Judge Jarvey said, and some of its most stringent protections apply when a background check is being obtained “for employment purposes.”

The definitions section of the FCRA, at 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(h), states that “

[t]he term ‘employment purposes’ when used in connection with a consumer report means a report used for the purpose of evaluating a consumer for employment, promotion, reassignment or retention as an employee.” This text “makes clear that the pre-adverse action notice requirement only applies when a consumer report is used for employment purposes,” Judge Jarvey wrote. “The meaning of ‘employment purposes’ is specifically defined in the statute, and it is defined as being ‘used for the purpose of evaluating a consumer for employment, promotion, reassignment or retention as an employee.’” District courts in Ohio and Wisconsin have reached the same conclusion, Judge Jarvey noted, citing the decisions for support.

Notably, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in its 2011 staff report entitled “40 Years of Experience with the Fair Credit Reporting Act” provided a seemingly contrasting interpretation. The FTC stated that “the term ‘employment purposes’ is interpreted liberally to effectuate the broad remedial purpose of the FCRA and may apply to situations where an entity uses individuals who are not technically employees to perform duties. Thus, it includes a trucking company that obtains consumer reports on individual drivers who own and operate their own equipment; a title insurance company that obtains consumer reports on individuals with whom it frequently enters into contracts to sell its insurance, examine title, and close real property transactions; or a nonprofit organization staffed in whole or in part by volunteers.”

The FTC’s view can be reconciled with that of Judge Jarvey’s by taking the approach that the applicability of FCRA’s requirements depends on the facts and circumstances of the particular relationship, rather than the formal designation of someone as an independent contractor.

Given the still remaining disputed issue of whether or not the plaintiff would have been an employee or an independent contractor for the insurance company, the court ordered limited discovery on the issue and declined to dismiss the suit.

January 2nd, 2019|Employment Decisions, FCRA, Judgment|

12 Next