Author Archives: Dorian

  • 0

Ban the Box Regulations Passed for Kansas City, MO’s Private Sector

Category : Compliance

Kansas City’s City Council recently approved an extension of its preexisting hiring guidelines that have been in place for public sector employees since 2013. Private sector employers in Kansas City, MO will be required to adhere to “Ban the Box” guidelines effective June 9, 2018. Under the new rules of Section 38-104, Kansas City employers with six or more employees, both private and public, will also be prohibited from making hiring or promotional decisions about a prospective employee’s criminal history until after determining that the individual is eligible for the position, and only after the applicant has been interviewed or extended an offer for the position.

Once the interview or offer is initiated, an employer can then initiate the background screening process. If a criminal record is located, employers must consider all of the available information including the record’s severity, the details of the record, and if the record is reasonably related to the duties of the position. Only after employers have followed all of these steps, can they take an adverse action based on an applicant’s criminal history.

Click here to view Kansas City’s Ban the Box Ordinance.

  • 0
Identify Subject2

Lack of background screening policy leads to legal liability for City of Schenectady, NY

Category : Legal

Having a strong pre-employment screening policy can help prevent possible issues that could arise from an applicant’s background. Recovering from a flawed hiring process isn’t always possible and can lead to negligent hiring litigation like with this recent case in Schenectady, NY. One city inspector was on the sex offender registry and another, who lied about a prior check fraud conviction on his job application, was charged in connection with an apartment building fire that resulted in the tragic loss of 4 lives.  Only after these incidents surfaced did the City Council members pass a resolution requiring mandatory criminal background checks of all potential city employees.

Understanding and implementing an FCRA compliant background screening process in the initial hiring process is crucial to any organization’s long term success. Utilizing a NAPBS accredited background screening company can assist employers to stay compliant with regulations, help with making discerning placement decisions and promote a safe work environment. This can be done through thorough reference checks, education verification services and criminal background checks.

Please see link below to read the full article:

Please feel free to reach out to CRC’s Customer Care Team if you have any questions on how we can improve your pre-employment screening process!

  • 0

California “Ban the Box” Law Now In Effect

Category : Compliance

Last year, California’s Governor signed a statewide “Ban-the-Box” law to go into effect on January 1, 2018. This law will put restrictions on when an applicant can be asked to disclose their criminal history for hiring purposes. It requires that employers remove this check box or question from their applications.

Click here for a detailed review of AB 1008 by James Silvers of Ogletree Deakins.

Ban the Box was designed to prevent employment discrimination against individuals with a criminal history. It was intended for employers to propose a conditional job offer of employment before the background check is processed. This law places a stronger obligation on employers to comply with pre-adverse and adverse action processes. Employers that conduct business in California or other Ban-the-Box jurisdictions should become familiar with the laws in those areas. Knowing what laws affect your company will prepare you to avoid litigation and remain compliant with the changing legislation.

Please note that these laws do not prevent employers from running background checks on their applicants, but more so require that a conditional offer of employment is made, which can be withdrawn, before obtaining the report.

Please reach out to CRC’s Customer Care Group at 877-272-0266 if you have any questions about how “Ban-the Box” laws may affect your company’s background screening process

  • 0
Adverse Action Picture

Employers Relying on Partial Reports May Be Required to Issue a Second Pre-Adverse Action Notice

Category : Compliance

A recent federal court decision highlights a potential compliance concern for employers regarding their Adverse Action requirements under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). In Wright v. Lincoln Prop. Co., the plaintiff alleged that his job offer was revoked after the potential employer received a partial criminal background report that revealed a misdemeanor DUI and multiple felonies. Following their adverse action procedures, the employer sent the plaintiff the partial report with their Pre-Adverse Action Notice.

A week later the employer received the final report that contained the same criminal history information along with “a more thorough summary of other types of searches run by [the background check company], such as credit report”. The plaintiff argued that he did not receive a copy of the final report, and thus stated that the company violated the FCRA. The court concluded that this case will be forwarded to a jury for review.

This case demonstrates the current trend of creative arguments being made by plaintiffs’ attorneys. Employers should review their background screening policy and implement procedures to mitigate legal exposure and possible litigation. An example of a litigation avoidance tactic for employers who rely on partial or interim reports is to always send a subsequent Pre-Adverse Action Notice with the updated report.

If you have any questions regarding your Adverse Action requirements under the FCRA or would like to learn more about CRC’s Adverse Action Fulfillment service, please reach out to our dedicated Customer Care team at 877-272-0266!

Click here for the full article by Pamela Devata of Seyfarth Shaw LLP

  • 0
symbol of business

Lax Matching Criteria Causes Background Screening Issues for Maryland Man

In an unfortunate and preventable case of mistaken identity, Christopher Jenkins, a Maryland man is struggling to progress beyond his potential employers’ background screening process since he shares the same name and date of birth as a convicted felon in South Florida. The Florida resident has a history of arrests including marijuana possession and grand theft auto. As a result of numerous inaccurate background checks, Christopher Jenkins now carries multiple documents from government agencies to prove that he’s never been convicted of any felonies.

This instance of mistaken identity could be the result of the previous background screening providers’ lax matching criteria. Employers are advised to properly vet their background screening provider’s reporting policies, specifically their matching criteria and the sources of their data. Background screeners are regulated by the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which requires maximum possible accuracy in the reporting of public records. To ensure maximum possible accuracy, background screening providers should have a reporting policy specific to “Common Names”. A comprehensive “Common Name” policy will include the verification of additional data points like previously known addresses. Additional procedures for locating more data points in the criminal record should also be included. Additional data points can be located by pulling the hard copy of the criminal case file from the court or requesting the criminal complaint from the responding law enforcement agency. A “Common Name” policy is more stringent for the purpose of ensuring that any reported criminal records are accurate and belong to the subject of the background check.

CRC customers can reach out to our dedicated Customer Care Team at (877) 272-0266 for more information on our Criminal Record Matching Criteria and Common Name policy!

Click here to read the the full story posted by the Palm Beach Post

#FCRA #backgroundchecks #criminalrecordcheck #mistakenidentity #criminalrecords #adverseaction #hiringguidelines #humanresources #HR #compliance

  • 0
NC SHRM 2017

CRC exhibiting at NC SHRM 2017 – Revolutionize and Reinvent

Category : Uncategorized

We are wrapping up our final preparations for the 2017 NC SHRM Conference. This year the conference is being held at the Koury Convention Center in Greensboro, NC from Wednesday, September 27 to Friday, September 29.

Click here for more information about NC SHRM 2017

Click here to register for NC SHRM 2017

Going along with this year’s theme of “Revolutionize and Reinvent”, stop by our booth (#606) to learn about emerging trends in the background screening industry, as well as new compliance solutions and account features that streamline the background screening process and can mitigate your organization’s risk.

While you are visiting our booth, don’t forget to drop off your business card for a chance to win a $500 AMEX Gift Card!

Looking forward to seeing everyone in Greensboro!

Dorian D. Dehnel



  • 0

Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against PepsiCo Subsidiary for Alleged FCRA Violations

Category : Legal

A class action lawsuit was filed against Bottling Group LLC, a subsidiary of Pepsi Co, Inc, by a job applicant, Altareek Grice, who alleges that he was not properly notified when the company procured a consumer report on him.  (Altareek Grice v. Pepsi Beverages Co. et al., Case No. 3:17-­cv-­01842, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California)

Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) employers are required to provide clear and conspicuous disclosure, on a document consisting solely of the disclosure, as well as obtain the consumer’s written authorization prior to procuring the consumer report.  This process is commonly referred to as “Disclosure and Authorization”. If the court finds that there are damages, PepsiCo and its subsidiary could face fines of $100 to $1,000 per violation.

While this case is still in the initial stages of litigation, this should serve as a reminder to employers to review their FCRA forms, in particular their Disclosure and Authorization forms, as well as their Adverse Action forms.

Employers should also leverage their background screening provider for assistance with FCRA compliance.  Although background screening providers cannot (and should not) provide legal counsel, experienced and accredited background screening providers can provide end users with valuable tools and resources to help them comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act and its analogous state laws.

Examples of these tools and resources include, but are not limited to, sample template FCRA and state-specific forms, document/process fulfillment and automated compliance tools which are offered directly through the background screener’s online portal.  Furthermore, most established background screening providers have relationships with experienced, industry-leading attorneys. If outside counsel is sought, the background screening provider will be able to refer the employer to an attorney that specializes in background screening and the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

For more information on how CRC can help you comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act, please reach out to our dedicated Customer Care Team at (877) 272-0266!

  • 0

Equifax Data Breach Exposes 143 Million Americans to Identity Theft

Equifax announced yesterday that they have suffered a data breach that exposes 143 million people to identity theft. The hack was discovered on July 29th, but consumers were not alerted until September 07th due to the company’s investigation. The breach yielded consumer’s names, birth dates, Social Security numbers, addresses and driver’s license numbers. In addition, Equifax stated that credit card numbers for about 209,000 U.S. consumers were stolen as well as “certain dispute documents” containing personal information for 182,000 individuals.

Equifax offers a site to enroll in free credit monitoring in response to this incident ( Please note that their terms of use effective September 6, 2017 for utilizing this service limits the ability for a potential consumer to participate in a class action lawsuit. (

If you are concerned that you were affected by the Equifax data breach, regularly review your statements and check your credit now. A great resource for periodically checking your credit report is This is a government-sponsored site that allows consumers to check their credit report, for free, through each of the major credit bureaus once every 12 months.

CRC customers can reach out to CRC’s Customer Care Group at 1-877-272-0266 Extension 0 if they have any questions about this article!

  • 0

9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Rules on Robins V. Spokeo, Inc

The Ninth Circuit’s recent Robins V. Spokeo ruling alleges a concrete injury by Spokeo, Inc due to technical FCRA violations. While this case still needs to be tried at the district court level, this should be a reminder for all users of background screening services to understand the technical requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and work with a Consumer Reporting Agency that will provide you with assistance on how to comply.

Click the link below for the full article!

Have questions about the Robins V. Spokeo ruling? CRC customers can call the Customer Care Group at 877-272-0266 X 0.

  • 0
LA Municipal Building

Los Angeles Ban the Box – Effective January 22, 2017

Los Angeles is the latest jurisdiction to Ban the Box with the “Los Angeles Fair Chance Initiative for Hiring (Ban the Box)”.  The ordinance was signed by Mayor Eric Garcetti on December 9th and goes into effect on January 22, 2017.

As a result of this ordinance, employers are prohibited from inquiring about an applicant’s criminal history until a conditional job offer has been made.  The ordinance applies to employers that are located in or doing business in Los Angeles and employ at least 10 employees.

Prior to taking adverse action against an applicant based on their  criminal history, the employer must perform an Individualized Assessment.  A copy of the Individualized Assessment and any other information or documentation supporting the adverse action must be provided to the applicant.  After providing the applicant with the documentation supporting the adverse action, the employer must wait at least five (5) business days before filling the position or taking adverse action against the applicant.  If the applicant provides additional information or documentation within the five (5) business days, the employer is required to consider the information and perform a written reassessment, which is required to be provided to the applicant if adverse action is ultimately taken against the applicant.

The four exceptions to the ordinance are as follows:

  • The employer is required by law to obtain information regarding a conviction of an applicant.
  • The applicant would be required to possess or use a firearm in the course of his or her employment.
  • The applicant has been convicted of a crime is prohibited by law from holding the position sought.
  • An employer is prohibited by law from hiring an applicant who has been convicted of a crime.

Click here for the full text of  Los Angeles Fair Chance Initiative for Hiring (Ban the Box)