Category Archives: Compliance

  • -

Delta Air Lines to Pay $2.3 Million to Settle FCRA Class Action Lawsuit

Delta Airlines has agreed to pay $2.3 Million to settle a class action lawsuit for alleged Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) violations. Approximately 44,000 applicants were affected and are eligible to collect a portion of the settlement. According to the plaintiffs, Delta’s forms contained extraneous and misleading information that could not be understood without an in-depth review of the FCRA. Under the 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 means that any extraneous information such as a release of liability or any other information that detracts from the notice should not be on the disclosure and including it there can result in legal and monetary repercussions.

Cases like 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.

Some resources most accredited screening providers can offer 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. Also, 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.

Are you interested in leveraging CRC’s compliance team to ensure you’re in FCRA compliance? Feel free to reach out to us for a free consultation!


  • -

Ban the Box Sweeps the West Coast with Washington’s Fair Chance Act

Category : Compliance

Joining California and Oregon, Washington’s Governor Jay Inslee signed into law the Fair Chance Act (HB 1298) on March 13, 2018. Washington’s version of the “ban the box” law will be effective on June 6, 2018.

Much like most traditional ‘ban-the-box’ legislation, the Fair Chance act will prohibit employers from inquiring about an applicant’s criminal history before the applicant is deemed ‘otherwise qualified’ for the position sought. Exceptions to the law include jobs in law enforcement, state agencies, schools and other businesses that supervise children, persons with disabilities and vulnerable adults.

Click here to review Washington’s Fair Chance Act (HB 1298)

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


  • -

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.


  • -

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


  • -

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