Category Archives: Uncategorized

  • 0

World Health Day – Thank You From CRC

Category : Uncategorized

On behalf of everyone at CRC, we’d like to say thank you to the nurses and healthcare workers on the front lines of the COVID-19 response.

As today is World Health Day, it’s the perfect opportunity for all of us to support nurses and midwives and reflect on the diligent, high quality care they provide each and every day to keep our communities healthy.

If you’d like to learn more about the WHO’s World Health Day and what you can do to get involved, you can do so by clicking the link below.

  • -

Ex-Jacksonville Jaguars Contractor Had Failed to Register as a Sex Offender

Category : Uncategorized

A former operator of the Jacksonville Jaguars’ Jumbotron was recently arrested for possession of child pornography and unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. The arrest occurred during an investigation into how the contractor had hacked the jumbotron to cause system outages. It was later revealed that the contractor had been previously convicted of a 1998 sexual offense involving a child and had failed to register as a sex offender upon moving to Florida.

This instance demonstrates that employers should not only properly vet all employees, but also contractors or other third parties that have access to their facilities, clients and workforce. Having established policies that detail how contractors are screened can help to mitigate your hiring risk. If relying on staffing companies, employers should be knowledgeable of their staffing company’s background screening policies and procedures, as well as the scope of their background check.  Since not all background checks provide the same comprehensive scope, convictions from outside of the standard 7 year reporting timeframe are often overlooked. Issues such as this are avoidable and HR teams can mitigate their risk by partnering with a background screener that can meet their reporting requirements.

Please feel free to reach out to CRC’s Sales team at (877) 272-0266 if you have any questions or concerns about your current process!

  • -

Petco Settles for $1.2 million for FCRA Violation in Online Application

Category : Uncategorized

Petco just reached a $1.2 million settlement with two job applicants that alleged concrete injury under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Representing a class of over 37,000 job applicants, both plaintiffs alleged that Petco “buries” the background check disclosure in its online application. One of the plaintiffs also argued that she was denied employment based on the results of her background check and that Petco did not provide a reason for the rejection.

Petco motioned to have the original claim dismissed but a federal judge denied Petco’s claim to dismiss, siding with the plaintiffs’ claim that the company’s policy had willfully violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

As more and more employers transition to online applications or Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS), Petco’s recent settlement is significant because it illustrates the importance of establishing clear pre-employment screening procedures that comply with FCRA guidelines, whether or not the process is online.  Employers should be meticulous when establishing an online application process to ensure that it does not violate the FCRA or analogous state laws. Arguably the biggest liability is the disclosure. The online disclosure should be handled in the same manner as a hard copy disclosure (clear and conspicuous disclosure on document consisting solely of the disclosure). One way to accomplish this is to have the online disclosure on a separate tab or page in the online application process.

What protocols do you have in place to ensure that your online application process is FCRA compliant? Our clients are leveraging CRC’s Compliant Support Services to ensure that their online process is compliant with the FCRA. Want to find out how? Contact CRC’s Sales team for more information!

Jacklyn Feist, et al. v. Petco Animal Supplies Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-01369, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California