EEOC Issues New Strategic Enforcement Plan

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), an agency of the federal government created by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prevent discrimination, created an enforcement plan in December 2012 for years 2013 through 2016. This month, the EEOC has put together a strategic enforcement plan (SEP) for years 2017 through 2021. One of the ways the EEOC combats discrimination is targeting unfair, discriminatory recruitment and hiring policies. Employers with fifteen or more employees are subject to the guidelines of the EEOC. The guidelines for proper recruiting measures can be found here.

For 2017-2021, the EEOC will be focusing on class-based recruitment practices that discriminate against racial, ethnic, religious groups, older works, women, and those with disabilities. Due to an expanding temporary workforce, the EEOC has made it its priority to focus on temporary workers, staffing agencies, and independent contractor relationships.

EEOC Initiatives:

1. Eliminating Barriers in Recruitment and Hiring.
2. Protecting Vulnerable Workers, Including Immigrant and Migrant Workers, and Underserved Communities from Discrimination.
3. Addressing Selected Emerging and Developing Issues.
4. Ensuring Equal Pay Protections for All Workers.
5. Preserving Access to the Legal System.
6. Preventing Systemic Harassment.

As a 3^rd-party provider of background screening, we will be focusing on the first initiative. The EEOC means to target screening tools that disproportionately impact workers based on their protected status. They include pre-employment tests, background checks impacting African American and Latinos, date-of-birth inquiries that impact older workers, and medical questionnaires that impact individuals with disabilities.

The EEOC’s recommendations for proper use of background information:

• Apply the same standards to everyone, regardless of their race, national origin, color, sex, religion, disability, genetic information (including family medical history), or age (40 or older). For example, if you don't reject applicants of one ethnicity with certain financial histories or criminal records, you can't reject applicants of other ethnicities because they have the same or similar financial histories or criminal records.
• Take special care when basing employment decisions on background problems that may be more common among people of a certain race, color, national origin, sex, or religion; among people who have a disability; or among people age 40 or older. For example, employers should not use a policy or practice that excludes people with certain criminal records if the policy or practice significantly disadvantages individuals of a particular race, national origin, or another protected characteristic, and does not accurately predict who will be a responsible, reliable, or safe employee. In legal terms, the policy or practice has a "disparate impact" and is not "job related and consistent with business necessity."
• Be prepared to make exceptions for problems revealed during a background check that were caused by a disability. For example, if you are inclined not to hire a person because of a problem caused by a disability, you should allow the person to demonstrate his or her ability to do the job - despite the negative background information - unless doing so would cause significant financial or operational difficulty.

Make sure your company is not using date of birth for anything other than a criminal record search. Any other use of the date of birth could be construed as discrimination against older workers. Be certain any exclusions based on criminal history are relevant to the tasks required of the job and do not negatively impact a certain race exclusively. Lastly, give applicants with disabilities a chance to prove his/her capability to do the job at hand.

We recommend companies review their recruitment and hiring practices to ensure that they are in line with EEOC requirements.  To see the SEP in full, click here.

Screening Your Seasonal Workforce

October through January are big months for the retail industry in terms of sales volume. Unfortunately, the holiday season also accounts for about half of all annual shrinkage. Shrinkage is the loss of inventory that can be attributed to factors such as employee theft, shoplifting, administrative errors, vendor fraud, etc. The two biggest causes of retail shrinkage in the U.S. are employee theft at 43% and shoplifting at 32%.

Forty-three percent is an alarming number for employee theft. It is no coincidence that these four months require the hiring of seasonal workers to help with increased foot traffic and sales volume. With these appalling numbers in mind, how can retail companies combat this seasonal employee theft epidemic?

For starters, retail companies should be aware that cutting corners with their screening process will not save their business money in the long run. Shrinkage results in a loss of $42 billion for U.S. retailers annually. With almost half of the $42 billion in shrinkage occurring during the holidays, it is a no-brainer to require the same background screening standards to seasonal workers as full-time employee. However Holding seasonal workers to the same standards as full-time employees means nothing if you are conducting a bare-bones background check on full-time employees. Reducing shrinkage requires a background check that is comprehensive in scope.

Secondly, it is important to remember that if an individual has stolen from their employer, they are more likely to repeat that offense. Bolster your employment verification process by requiring a reference from the individual’s last employer. While the applicant may not have been convicted of theft, their employment may have been terminated for deceitful practices such as: entering refunds or discounts, cancelling transactions, or modifying prices at the cash register. A lot of theft is the result of dishonest practices at the cash register.

If your company is in the retail industry, take a look at your background screening procedure. Are you doing the bare minimum? If your background check consists only of a national database search, you are more likely to hire someone who has committed theft in the past. If you have any questions about fortifying your background screening process, please feel free to use the comments section or contact S2Verify at 1 855 671 1933. 

"What's the Hold Up?" — 5 Reasons For Delays and How To Overcome Them

     Delays in the hiring process can be frustrating. Filling a job position, in most cases, is very time-sensitive. The last thing you want to hear is that the background check is holding up the entire process. So in order to keep you from pulling out your hair, we have compiled a list of some of the most common delays and why these delays happen. We have even provided some tips to combat delays in your screening program.

1.   Inaccurate Personal Information

Errors when inputting important identifiers, such as the name or date of birth of the applicant, can mess up the background check. Nothing will delay the process more than having to redo the search, starting with re-entry of personal identifiers. Failure to use accurate information will require that you reach back out to the applicant to make corrections. This is a sure way to bring your process to a screeching halt. Errors made in entry on I9’s or EVerify orders cannot be fixed by S2Verify, requires a cancellation of the search, by law, and re-entry by the client.

2.    Additional Information Required

The background check may be at a standstill if you have not uploaded necessary documentation. Depending on the requirements of the background check, it could be anything from a driver’s license to a consent form. First and foremost, make sure you are doing everything that you can on your end to complete the background check and get the applicant on the job.

3.     Adjudication at the Local Level

Simply running an applicant through the national criminal database does not constitute a comprehensive background check. The information can be inaccurate based upon time lapse or out-of-date. Due diligence requires verification of any records found in the national criminal database at the local level (i.e. county or state courts). Also, not every court system has records online. This results in manual court record retrieval, which can take some time. Adjudication at the county level is best practices and a necessary procedure to deliver accurate, current data.

4.      Failure to Reach Sources for Education or Employment Verification

Trying to get a hold of someone from the appropriate school or company can prove difficult at times. For example, getting proof of an applicant’s high school diploma can be a struggle during the summer months. Verification can be one of the biggest obstacles preventing the timely completion of an applicant’s background check.

5.     Court Closings

Factors such as holidays and harsh weather conditions can result in local courts closing for a period of time. Background checks that are awaiting information from one of these courts are stuck in limbo until the courts re-open. Currently, not every court offers online access to records. Unfortunately, this is a delay that cannot be avoided.

What can I do to overcome these delays?

Set-backs, such as court closings and the adjudication of records, cannot be avoided. Until every court provides access to records online, weather and holidays will continue to be a problem. This is a reality, regardless of the provider you choose for your background checks. There are a few things, however, that you can do to ensure the greatest result in terms of turnaround time:

1.     Double check to make sure the information inputted is correct before you submit it for a background check. Two transposed digits can mean the difference between an erroneous and an accurate background check.

2.     Make sure that the background check is not pending the upload of documentation on your end. Certain searches require additional information, such as a driver’s license or consent form.

3.      Ensure that your provider is doing everything they can to verify past employment and education. Ask them what their procedure is. Do they use a database? Do they outsource the work? How often are they reaching out to employers/schools? If they are not calling sources frequently enough, they will not be able to verify employment/education. Hold your provider accountable.  

Improving Your Employment Screening Program in 2015

As we kick off 2015, we thought it would be fitting to provide you with some insight on refining your employment screening program. Understanding the basics of employment screening is important, whether you are initiating an employment screening program for the first time or seeking improvements for an existing program. Is improving your program on the agenda for 2015? This 3-part blog will look at three areas in your background screening program worth reviewing: Legal Compliance, Choosing the Right Screening Package, and Customer Service. 

Part 1: Compliance

In Regards to the EEOC:

The first step to promoting compliance is creating a written policy for employment screening at your company. Creating a clearly defined policy and strictly adhering to those guidelines is a great way to protect your company. One recommendation is to clearly state exactly what background information will be utilized for each job position.

You want a non-discriminatory background screening process that does not change from person to person. However, it should be modified for each available job position. EEOC guidance suggests companies determine whether a criminal conduct exclusion is job related and consistent with business necessity. And remember, valid exclusions include relevant convictions, NOT arrests.

The EEOC, which acts in interest of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, states that employers need to show that their policy operates to effectively link specific conduct, and its dangers, with the risks inherent in the duties of a particular position. This is one of the three factors that the EEOC suggests employers take into account when considering denial of employment. The other two factors are the nature of the crime and the time elapsed. For more information, please read the EEOC’s guidance in full.

In Regards to the FCRA:

The Fair Credit Reporting Act regulates the collection, dissemination, and use of consumer information. Employers are required to follow the regulations set forth by the FCRA when using consumer reporting agencies (like S2Verify) to obtain consumer reports for “employment purposes”. 

The numerous FCRA class action lawsuits from 2014 just go to show that employers are still getting this wrong. O’Reilly Auto Parts, Swift Transportation, Whole Foods, Canon Solutions America, Dollar General, and Publix are just a few companies that were recently involved in costly class action lawsuits. Failure to comply with the FCRA can cost companies millions of dollars. 

Below are rules you must follow to maintain FCRA compliance:    

                                           

Before obtaining background information:

1.       Disclosure and Authorization

a.       Disclosure and authorization forms were the reason many employers (O’Reilly Auto Parts, Publix, Whole Foods) faced class action lawsuits in 2014.

b.      Must be signed BEFORE the background check

c.       Disclosure and authorization forms should be standalone documents and cannot contain extraneous information such as release language

If you plan to deny employment based on the background report:

1.       A Pre-Adverse Action Notice must be sent to the applicant. It must include:

a.       Name, address, and phone number of CRA

b.      The fact that the CRA did not make the adverse decision and cannot give reasons for the decision

c.       His/her right to a free copy of the consumer report

d.      His/her right to contact the CRA to dispute the accuracy of the report

e.      Summary of Rights including any State specific requirements

2.       After allowing the applicant five days to dispute any information found in the report, an Adverse Action Notice is to be sent to the applicant. It must include:

a.       Notification to him/her of final decision to deny employment based on consumer report.

b.      All notification provisions used in Pre-Adverse Action letter.

In Regards to Local Laws:

While it is important to abide by the FCRA and EEOC’s standards, that alone is not enough for legal compliance. You must also stay up-to-date on local laws. In 2014, new local “Ban the Box” laws popped up in counties, cities, and states all over the country. These “Ban the Box” laws, as they are called, not only restrict the use of criminal history inquiry on the application, but potentially tell you at what point in the hiring process a background check may be run. 

A good resource to keep up with your particular city/state and any laws that may apply to your business is NELP.org. For the sake of caution, our best practice recommendation, in most cases, is to hold off on the background check until after a conditional offer is made.

NELP.org - http://www.nelp.org/page/content/banthebox/

Publix Settles for $6.8 Million in FCRA Class Action

“I release Publix Super Markets, Inc., its employees, its authorized agents and representatives from any liability in connection with any decisions made concerning my employment based on information reported.” The inclusion of this language in their background check disclosure form is costing Publix millions of dollars. Facing a potential 90,000+ class members and an indisputable violation of the FCRA, Publix has decided to settle for $6.8 million.

Long story short, your disclosure form cannot consist of anything more than stating your intent to procure a consumer report for employment purposes per the FCRA. The inclusion of release language, i.e. “I hereby release company from liability”, will open your business up to a potential class action suit much like this one. Publix isn’t the only company to have made this mistake recently. This class action lawsuit follows closely on the heels of many similar cases. Whole Foods, ClosetMaid, O’ Reilly’s Automotive Stores Inc., CEC Entertainment Inc., and ESA Management are just a few of the companies who failed to provide a standalone disclosure and/or included release language.

While the disclosure and authorization can be put together, employers may want to separate the two. As it stands, there are no rules against release language on your authorization form. Before implementing any changes, however, it would be prudent to discuss them with your legal counsel. Also, it would be wise for all employers to review their current disclosure and authorization forms with their legal counsel to make sure you are not making a similar mistake.

You can find the Fair Credit Reporting Act in its entirety here.

Washington D.C. Ban-the-Box Legislation Set to Take Effect in October

Ban-the-box legislation originally prohibited employers from including the question “have you been convicted of a crime” and its associated check box. This was in an effort to rehabilitate former offenders. The thought process is that without an opportunity to gain employment, many are doomed to become repeat offenders. While recent laws in the same vein are being referred to as ban-the-box laws, this is a bit of a misnomer. The movement towards more regulations on background screening has evolved to include more stipulations than just removing a check box from an application.

The latest to join the recent push for more regulations on background screening is Washington D.C. The bill signed by Mayor Vincent Gray last month will go into effect after a 30-day period of congressional review. It is scheduled to go into effect October 21, 2014. This law, dubbed the Fair Criminal Record Screening Amendment Act of 2014, applies to all D.C. employers with 10 or more employees.

The law states:

•          Employers may not make any inquiry about an arrest or criminal accusation against the applicant, which is not pending and did not result in a conviction.
•          An employer must not make any inquiry about an applicant’s criminal history until after making a conditional offer of employment.
•          A conditional offer can only be rescinded if there is a “legitimate business reason”

Exceptions where inquiry into an applicant’s criminal may precede a conditional offer:

•          Where any federal or District law or regulation requires the consideration of an applicant’s criminal history for the purposes of employment
•          Where a position designated by the employer is part of a federal or District government program or obligation that is designed to encourage the employment of those with criminal histories

Penalties for violation:

•          For employers that employ 11-30 employees, a fine of up to $1,000
•          For employers that employ 31-99 employees, a fine of up to $2,500
•          For employers that employ 100 or more employees, a fine of up to $5,000

It is crucial that D.C. employers update their hiring practices no later than October 21^st.  Ensure that the application has been reviewed and modified accordingly. Also, make sure that a criminal background check is not performed before a conditional offer has been made. Lastly, the exclusion of an applicant based on criminal conduct must be job related and consistent with business necessity. If you are not sure what that means, refer to this EEOC guidance.

There are now 13 states and around 70 cities and counties in the U.S. that have enacted some form of “Ban-the Box” legislation. We will continue to report new developments so that you may remain informed and in compliance with the local laws that apply to you and your organization. Another good resource for staying up-to-date is www.nelp.org.

S2Verify Has Received NAPBS Accreditation

We are proud to announce that we have received accreditation by the National Association of Professional Background Screeners’ (NAPBS®) Background Screening Credentialing Council (BSCC). This endorsement from the NAPBS validates our commitment to service excellence. This accreditation serves as proof of our business and process standards. It reflects the values our company has maintained since its inception in 2009.

To become BSCC-accredited, consumer reporting agencies must pass a rigorous on-site audit, conducted by an independent auditing firm, of its policies and procedures. The audit focuses on six critical areas: consumer protection, legal compliance, client education, product standards, service standards, and general business practices. Only about 10% of background screening providers in the United States are NAPBS accredited. We are so honored to be in elite company and recognized as one of the leaders in our industry. 

For more information about NAPBS accreditation and what it entails, click here. 

Ban-the Box Update (August 2014)

Many cities and states are adopting or expanding "Ban the Box" regulations. Here is the latest.

San Francisco

                Today, August 13^th, San Francisco’s Fair Ordinance goes into effect. They certainly are not the first to enact what many are calling “Ban the Box” legislation. This ordinance applies to both the public and private sector. San Francisco employers need to ensure they are up to code on their background screening.

Illinois

                Another change employers should be aware of is Illinois’ expanded “ban the box” legislation that now includes private employers. This makes Illinois the fifth state in the nation to require both public and private employers to limit inquiry about convictions. The other states are Minnesota, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. Illinois is calling their “Ban the Box” legislation the Job Opportunities for Qualified Applicants Act. It takes effect on January 1, 2015. 

New Jersey

                Governor Chris Christie signed the Opportunity to Compete Act on August 11^th. This law expands New Jersey’s “Ban the Box” regulations to the private sector, much like Illinois’ Job Opportunities for Qualified Applicants Act. It is set to take effect on March 1, 2015. This makes New Jersey the 13^th state to adopt “Band the Box” legislation, and the 6^th state to expand the regulations to the private sector.

“Ban the Box” legislation is spreading like wildfire. As a background screening provider, the only thing we can do is keep you updated on the latest employment screening standards.

While S2Verify cannot provide legal advice, we can suggest you discuss with counsel, the following guidelines:

•          Do not ask about arrests that did not lead to a conviction

•          Do not ask about an individual’s conviction history at the beginning of the hiring process (such as the application)

•          Only after a conditional offer has been made can one ask about criminal history

•          Only convictions related to the job can be considered in the decision to deny employment

Three Employers Face Class Action Lawsuits from the Same Law Firm

 Despite all of the FCRA-related class action suits taking place, it appears large companies are not taking an appropriate course of action to ensure they are in compliance. One has to wonder whether, whether it is simply a lack of attention to detail (That would be a surprise) or simply HR/Legal/Compliance not staying current. The latest three companies in question are Panera, LLC, American Multi-Cinema, Inc. (AMC), and Nine West Holdings. Two of these class action suits involve the same plaintiff, and all three are from the same Florida law firm. In each of these cases, the plaintiff applied for employment online. Each of these companies allegedly failed to provide a valid, compliant consent form before initiating pre-employment background checks.

An employer’s obligation before obtaining background information is as follows (from the co-published FTC/EEOC guide):

·         Tell the applicant or employee you might use the information for decisions about his or her employment. This notice must be in writing and in stand-alone format. The notice can’t be in an employment application. You can include minor additional information in the notice (like a brief description of the nature of consumer reports), but only if it does not confuse or detract from the notice.

·         If you are asking a company to provide an “investigative report” – a report based on personal interviews concerning a person’s character, general reputation, personal characteristics, and lifestyle – you must also tell the applicant or employee of his or her right to a description of the nature and scope of the investigation.

·         Get the applicant’s or employee’s written permission to do the background check. This can be part of the document you use to notify the person that you will get the report. If you want the authorization to allow you to get background reports throughout the person’s employment, make sure you say so clearly and conspicuously.

You can find the FTC/EEOC guidance as a whole here.

Panera allegedly violated the FCRA by not providing a consent form specifically for a consumer report. The plaintiff also alleged that the bakery-café chain included extraneous information that detracted from the notice. American Multi-Cinema, Inc. (AMC) allegedly did not have a stand-alone consent form for online application for employment. And finally, Nine West Holdings allegedly had consent language that was part of a web page that contained a number of links to Nine West information on the website.

The main takeaways from these alleged violations is:

·         Your consent, AKA disclosure and authorization, must be a stand-alone (not part of the application) form.

·         The consent form cannot contain extraneous information

·         The purpose of the consent must be clearly stated (i.e. employment screening)

The lawsuit demonstrates that violations of the FCRA can create large potential liability.  Potential class members, including employees and prospective employees, may be entitled to statutory damages of up to $1,000 for each violation in the case of willful non-compliance. Class action lawsuits also create exposure for large awards of attorney’s fees and the potential exposure to punitive damages.

If you have any doubts about your company’s FCRA compliance, PLEASE act before you wind up on the wrong end of a class-action lawsuit.

Louisville: The Latest City to "Ban the Box"

Add Louisville to the list of cities who have “banned the box”. The Louisville Metro Council passed the new law earlier this month. This means that city employers cannot include a section on the application that asks the applicants to reveal if they have been previously convicted. Louisville joins over 50 cities/counties who have some form of the ban-the-box policy.

These ordinances serve to discourage employers from denying a qualified job-seeker based solely on a prior conviction. This particular law pertains to jobs for the City as well as vendor/contractors who do business with the City. The law pushes back the inquiry into the applicant’s criminal history until later in the hiring process. For more on Louisville’s new ordinance, visit NELP.org.

We are seeing more and more of these policies. Half of the states in the U.S. now have at least one city with a ban-the-box policy. Expect more soon. We will keep you up-to-speed. 

Latest Class Action - Canon Solutions America Inc.

Canon Solutions America Inc. is the latest company to come under compliance fire for an alleged failure to follow FCRA guidelines. Anya McPherson, the individual responsible for the class action, claims that Canon Solutions America fired her without offering her a chance to dispute the results of a background check. McPherson also claims that the charge was more than a decade old and that the conviction was expunged. To make matters more complicated for Canon, the plaintiff also stated that she did not receive a copy of her report, and did not receive a summary of her rights under the FCRA.

Due to the high frequency of cases being brought against employers for FCRA violations, I decided to include a ‘refresher’ for FCRA compliance. 

Please be sure to take into consideration the following:

1) Before Obtaining A Consumer Report

If you intend to use a consumer report for employment purposes, you must provide written disclosure of your intent to perform a background check as a condition of employment. You must also get permission from the applicant. This comes in the form of a written consent form. Once you have obtained consent from the applicant, you can move forward with the background check. The Disclosure and Consent should be kept as separate clearly defined documents or ‘pages’ if you will.

2) Pre-Adverse Action

Adverse Action basically means that you may or intend to deny the applicant employment based on the information you obtained from the background check. If based on your review of the background you plan to pass on the applicant based on this info, you must send the applicant a pre-adverse action letter. 

The Pre-Adverse Action letter must include the following re notification:

• The name, address, and phone number of the Credit Reporting Agency (CRA)

• The fact that the CRA didn't make the adverse decision and cannot give reasons for the decision

• His/her right to a free copy of the consumer report within 60 days

• His/her right to contact the CRA to dispute the accuracy of the report

• Summary of Rights including any State specific requirements

3) Adverse Action

After you have given the applicant 5 days to dispute the report, you may take Adverse Action against the applicant. You must notify them of your final decision to deny employment based upon their consumer report, through use of an Adverse Action Letter, which also must contain all of the above notification provisions mentioned above under pre adverse.

The FTC and EEOC also co-published guidance on the proper procedure for background screening, which can be found here. 

FTC and EEOC Co-Publish Background Screening Compliance Guide

On March 10, 2014, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) co-published two guides to help employers and applicants understand how to implement a legally compliant background screening program. The two documents are titled Background Checks: What Employers Need to Know and Background Checks: What Job Applicants and Employees Should Know. The FTC is in charge of enforcing the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), a federal law that regulates collection, dissemination, and the use of consumer information. The EEOC enforces Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination by employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

Both agencies stress that employers get permission from applicants before getting background reports, and must not unlawfully discriminate in the use background checks. The agencies are both tasked with regulating background screening, so they decided to work together on this guidance. The objective of the guidance is that both sides (employers and job applicants) fully comprehend their rights as well as their obligations.

The first guide, Background Checks: What Employers Need to Know, contains instruction for employers on several steps of the background screening process. Both agencies include compliance information at each stage of the process. There is instruction on what to do before you get background information, how to use background information, and the disposal of background information.

The second short guide, Background Checks: What Job Applicants and Employees Should Know, serves to educate applicants and employees on their rights and how to handle a breach of their rights by an employer. The guidance is written in plain terms so as clearly understood by consumers. There is also contact information should an applicant/employee feel their rights have been violated.

You can find the full guide for employers here.

You can find the full guide for applicants and employees here. 

Assessment of the Effects of EEOC's 2012 Background Screening Guidance

In December of 2012, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights held a briefing to assess the effects of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s 2012 Guidance. This briefing was held to discuss the impact that their guidance had on background screening for both black/Hispanic applicants and employers. Record of this briefing was just released as a 346-page report. I have taken the time to summarize the main points discussed in the report.

The briefing consisted of 17 speakers from diverse backgrounds. While some of the speakers were pro-EEOC Guidance, many speakers took issue with the 2012 Guidance in some way or another.

The speakers are as follows: 

• Alfred Blumstein, Professor of Urban Systems, Carnegie Mellon University

• Carol Miaskoff, Acting Associate Legal Counsel, EEOC

• Don Livingston, Parter, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld

• Garen Dodge, Partner, Jackson Lewis LLP

• Glenn E. Martin, Vice President of Development and Public Affairs and Director of the David Rothenberg Center for Public Policy at the Fortune Society

• Harry Holzer, Professor of Public Policy, Georgetown University

• Jeffrey Sedgwick, Co-Founder, Keswick Advisors

• Jonathan Segal, Partner, Duane Morris LLP, Legislative Director, Society for Human Resource Management

• Julie Payne, Sr. Vice President and General Counsel of G4S Secure Solutions USA

• Lucia Bone, Founder of Sue Weaver C.A.U.S.E. (Consumer Awareness of Unsafe Service Employment)

• Montserrat Miller, Partner, Arnall Golden Gregory; Counsel, National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS)

• Nick Fishman, Co-Founder, Chief Marketing Officer and Executive Vice President, EmployeeScreenIQ

• Richard Larson, President, Winning Work Teams, Inc.

• Richard Mellor, VP, Loss Prevention, National Retail Federation

• Roberta Meyers, Director of Legal Action Center’s National Helping Individuals with Criminal Records Reenter through Employment Network, Also Known as H.I.R.E

• Todd McCracken, President, National Small Business Association

• William Dombi, VP, National Association for Home Care and Hospice

Objective of EEOC Guidance

The EEOC claimed the 2012 Guidance is in response to a disparate impact background screening has had on racial minorities. In other words, minorities have been experiencing difficulties while seeking employment due to a past criminal conviction. The objective of the EEOC is to give minorities an equal chance to re-integrate into society.

The Guidance:

• Puts employers on notice that categorical exclusions for people with certain arrest and conviction records may violate Title VII

• Emphasizes its earlier recommendation that job applications not ask about criminal records, and if they do ask, that they limit inquiries to conviction records for which exclusion would be job-related with business necessity

• Offers a series of examples of common policies and practices that violate Title VII 

• Informs local and state governments that barring people with certain criminal records from jobs or occupational licenses also could violate Title VII.  

Advocates of the EEOC Guidance made several arguments for its most recent list of best practices:

• There are over 65 million individuals with criminal records in this country

• By age 35, one-third of all young black men have been incarcerated at some point. 

• A person should not be haunted many years later by a mistake they made at a young age.

• Criminal Records have a more negative impact on employment for minorities.

• Recidivism probability declines with time clean after an arrest or conviction.

• Recidivism is less probable if an individual gains employment.

Speaker Glenn E. Martin presented a study that showed that black applicants with a criminal record were twice as likely to be denied a job as white applicants. He also reported that black and Latino applicants with clean backgrounds fared no better than white applicants just released from prison.

Harry Holzer made several compelling points:

“The prevalence of arrests and convictions among less-educated American men substantially reduces employer willingness to hire them later in life and worsens their employment outcomes more generally, in ways that generate clear “disparate impacts” on minority (especially black) men.

The very high costs of previous criminal histories on employment are borne not only by the offenders themselves, but also by their families and children, their communities, and the US economy more broadly; accordingly having some successful policy efforts to improve employment outcomes for this population are in the nation’s interest.

The EEOC Guidance should be viewed as one of several potentially effective legal and policy efforts to reduce the many barriers to employment among men with criminal records and thus to improve their employment outcomes.”

The Other Side of the Argument

Many speakers stressed that employers should not be restricted in their use of background checks due to:

• The reality of recidivism

• The prevalence of violent and/or theft-related offenses among inmates. 

• OSHA rules that require employers to provide a safe workplace. 

• Federal, state and local laws and licensing requirements that restrict individuals with certain convictions from employment in selected occupations. 

• State laws that put employers at risk for hiring mistakes. 

• Employer desire to protect business assets.  

Major Concerns 

Many speakers took issue with at least some part of the 2012 Guidance. The concerns that were echoed by the majority were:

• The Guidance is unclear. It is written in a way that is confusing to small business owners.

• The Guidance is vague about the act of conducting an individualized assessment.

• A conflict may arise when a state law mandates a background check, but taking adverse action based on that background check may result in a class action.

• The EEOC’s strategic enforcement plan to create class claims from individual claims encourages investigators to conduct overbroad inquiries.

• The EEOC’s restriction on the use of criminal background checks will have disastrous effects on public safety.

• The guidance results in more risk to the employer. For instance, an employer may feel pressure to hire an employee with a criminal record against his better judgment, resulting in a negligent hiring law suit. 

The EEOC aims to give minorities a fair chance to obtain a job after a conviction. They argue that the struggle to re-integrate into society has a profound effect on not only the individuals involved, but the economy as a whole. Frankly, nobody wants an individual to be perpetually unemployed because of a single mistake they made. But according to those opposed to the guidance as it stands, here lies the dilemma. 

The opposition claims if an employer takes a chance on an applicant with a prior conviction, employees and clients are potentially put at risk. By treating minorities with prior convictions as a protected class, are we putting co-workers and customers at risk? Who is correct, the EEOC or those who spoke out against the Guidance? 

We do not have the answer, but we do feel a certain responsibility to help companies comply with the EEOC’s 2012 Guidance. Our clients can rest assured that we will provide as much information as possible to help them maintain compliance. Some of the concerns that were voiced by several speakers have not yet been answered, but we will keep an eye on any potential developments/changes the EEOC might make. 

You can find the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’ entire report here. Comments? Concerns?

Background Screening Compliance Update

Ban-the-Box Compliance Update

As a provider of employment screening, we feel an obligation to communicate the manner in which our services can and cannot be used. We stress compliance with FCRA requirements, adhering to EEOC guidelines, and state regulations for the well-being of your firm. Due to an increase in the number of cities and counties passing “ban-the-box” regulations, we are providing you an updated list. This will serve as an additional guide as to the role of background screening in your hiring process. Data here is from the National Employment Law Project (NELP.org). The table below details the differences in the “ban-the-box” regulations for each city. 

The differences are as follows:

• which employers the law applies to (public or private sector)

• which positions the law applies to (specific positions or all)

• when a background check can be issued (at what point in the hiring process)

• whether or not EEOC criteria is included in law

• the right of an applicant to appeal background screening results

• Whether or not a copy of the background check report is to be provided

*Policies apply to contractors doing business with the Human Services Department

You will notice that some of these cities/counties incorporate the EEOC guidelines in their ban-the-box policies. For those of you who are not familiar with these guidelines, I have included them below.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Policy on Pre-Employment Background Checks:

“There is no Federal law that clearly prohibits an employer from asking about arrest and conviction records. However, using such records as an absolute measure to prevent an individual from being hired could limit the employment opportunities of some protected groups and thus cannot be used in this way.

Since an arrest alone does not necessarily mean that an applicant has committed a crime the employer should not assume that the applicant committed the offense. Instead, the employer should allow him or her the opportunity to explain the circumstances of the arrest(s) and should make a reasonable effort to determine whether the explanation is reliable.

Even if the employer believes that the applicant did engage in the conduct for which he or she was arrested that information should prevent him or her from employment only to the extent that it is evident that the applicant cannot be trusted to perform the duties of the position when:

• considering the nature of the job

• the nature and seriousness of the offense

• the length of time since it occurred.

This is also true for a conviction.

Several state laws limit the use of arrest and conviction records by prospective employers. These range from laws and rules prohibiting the employer from asking the applicant any questions about arrest records to those restricting the employer's use of conviction data in making an employment decision.

For more information, see,

 e.g., http://www.usis.com/commercialservices/transportation/FaqStateImpact.htm.

In some states, while there is no restriction placed on the employer, there are protections provided to the applicant with regard to what information they are required to report.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) imposes a number of requirements on employers who wish to investigate applicants for employment through the use of consumer credit report or criminal records check. This law requires the employer to advise the applicant in writing that a background check will be conducted, obtain the applicant's written authorization to obtain the records, and notify the applicant that a poor credit history or conviction will not automatically result in disqualification from employment.

Certain other disclosures are required upon the employee's request and prior to taking any adverse action based on the reports obtained.”

This information is from The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

For more clarification from the EEOC about their policies, check out this article.

The importance of compliance cannot be overstated. I hope this serves as a compliance guide for you and your company. I will continue to provide updated information on the ever-changing laws in the employment screening industry. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to provide your input. I will get back to you as soon as I can.

A Snag in EEOC's Plans to Regulate Background Checks

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission  is a bipartisan Commission that enforces employment discrimination laws. One of their most recent oversight efforts has been to engage in lawsuits aimed at businesses who use background checks to rule out applicants with criminal records. The EEOC claims that certain policies and procedures followed by companies are an act of discrimination against certain minorities. Lawsuits against Dollar General and a U.S. unit of BMW are pending;  however, on August 9th, a lawsuit filed in 2009 by the EEOC against Freeman Companies was resolved last week.

Freeman Companies, an event-marketing company, may have set precedent for several other similar cases when a Federal District Judge dismissed the case brought by the EEOC.  The Judge's opinion letter stated there was a lack of facts and error-ridden statistics. There was no evidence to prove that Freeman Companies, a company that employs 30,000+ people of varying races and backgrounds, was discriminating against African Americans or Hispanic applicants. While this is but a single ruling, this case will certainly have long reaching effects on the efforts of the EEOC’s plan to enforce their opinion on how background checks are used by companies.

Companies should be allowed to protect their primary assets.... their employees and their customers. The refusal to hire an applicant with a relevant, past conviction is not the same as racial discrimination. Safeguarding a company and its employees from violence, fraud, harassment, etc. is a perfectly reasonable course of action. The recent rulings may play a huge factor in the EEOC’s attempts to regulate the use of background checks. This is a victory of sorts for companies that want to maintain a safe workplace and protect their bottom line.

How do you feel about the ruling? 

How do you think it will affect the EEOC’s attempts to enforce their opinion on how background checks should be used by companies? 

Texas House Bill 1188 Limits Liability

Texas House Bill 1188

This bill limits the liability of employers, general contractors, premise owners and third parties for hiring employees with criminal convictions. It was introduced in February of this year, and it will take effect on September 1, 2013.
HB 1188 states that no legal action can be taken against an employer who negligently hires an employee with a criminal record. Now before you consider calling off background checks to cut your costs, be aware that there are many exceptions to this bill.

Exceptions-

An employer may be sued for negligently hiring an employee:

I. who has committed a criminal offense while performing duties similar to those expected to be performed in the course of employment

II. who has committed an criminal offense under conditions similar to those expected to be encountered in the course of employment

III. who has committed murder, capital murder, indecency with a child, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault, and/or aggravated robbery

Even with this law in place, you may still find yourself answering for the actions of your employees. Continuing to screen your applicants will protect your company and its reputation, as well as save you from a legal nightmare. The cost of a law suit is much more than the cost of a criminal background check, so don’t put your company at risk.

Click here for House Bill 1188 in its entirety.

Richmond, CA Takes "Ban-the-Box" A Step Further

Richmond, California added Chapter 2.65 to the Municipal Code entitled “Ban the Box” on July 30, 2013. Unlike other cities, Richmond is requiring that no employer can make inquiries into past criminal convictions at any point during the hiring process. While it does not prevent employers from doing background checks, it does prevent them from using criminal records to exclude ex-cons from their list of prospective employees

Below is a map of all the states who have adopted “Ban the Box” in some way.



Unlike, Richmond, CA, the laws in other cities mainly ban the inclusion of the checkbox for past convictions on the job application exclusively. Employers are not restricted from asking potential employees about their criminal background during the interview process.  Richmond, a city inundated with high crime and high unemployment, has taken this law a step further. Employers must refrain from discriminating against people with criminal records.

There are some exclusions from the new ordinance, of course. Jobs with children, seniors, and other “sensitive” jobs are special cases that are not included in the ordinance.

Richmond City Councilwoman, Jovanka Beckles, believes that it levels the playing field for all races. Beckles was one of the six people who approved the ordinance in a 6-1 vote in favor of the law. Those who voted in favor of the law believe that it gives ex-convicts a fair chance to have a place in our workforce, instead of turning back to crime.

The lone councilman opposed to the ordinance, Tom Butt, told a local newspaper, “It will be a nightmare to enforce and will discourage business and investment in Richmond.”

You can read city ordinance 14-13 N.S. here.


Thoughts? Good? Bad? Will this become a trend in places with high crime and unemployment?