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.

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/

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.

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? 

Newark (NJ) Ordinance "Bans the Box" and Significantly Restricts the Use of Criminal History Information in Employment

The City of Newark, New Jersey recently passed an ordinance that will significantly impact employers’ and other entities’ ability to conduct criminal background checks or even ask about a candidate’s criminal background. The ordinance limits both when and the extent to which employers may ask about or use criminal history in employment. Newark’s ordinance12-1630, entitled “Ordinance To Assist The Successful Reintegration Of Formerly Incarcerated People Into The Community By Removing Barriers To Gainful Employment And Stable Housing After Their Release From Prison; And To Enhance The Health And Security Of The Community By Assisting People With Criminal Convictions On Reintegration Into The Community And Providing For Their Families,” goes into effect on November 18, 2012.

Newark’s ordinance is the latest example of a series of efforts at the federal, state and local level aimed at curtailing employers’ ability to use criminal history information in employment. At the federal level, employers should be aware of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) April 25, 2012 Guidance on the Use of Arrest and Convictions (the Guidance) which sets forth practices employers may want to consider so as not to be a target of the EEOC. Similarly, a number of states have pending legislation seeking to follow the EEOC’s lead. This, in addition to other states which have already regulated this area.

Who is Covered Under Newark’s Ordinance

Newark’s ordinance is only applicable when the “the physical location of the prospective employment [is] in whole or substantial part, within the City of Newark.” In that sense, it is of limited local application. Importantly, the term “employer” is defined as “any person, company, corporation, firm, labor organization, or association, which has five (5) or more employees and does business, employs persons, or takes applications for employment within the city of Newark…”

“Employment” is defined more broadly, however, as “any occupation, vocation, job, work or employment with or without pay, including temporary or seasonal work, contracted work, contingent work, and work through the services of a temporary or other employment agency, or any form of vocational or educational training with or without pay.” (emphasis added).
These definitions suggest that the prohibitions contained in the ordinance, as well as the affirmative obligations it imposes, may apply with equal force when an employer is seeking volunteers, students, or independent contractors as opposed to solely employees.

As always, we suggest you consult with your own counsel regarding this matter, however feel free to contact us for further information.

Dollar General Next on the List for the EEOC

According to Dollar Generals latest 10Q, they are being investigated by the EEOC regarding their Background Screening Policy and how they use criminal records in hiring. The EEOC has alleged that Dollar General has discriminated against minorities for the way they apply their policy against applicants with criminal records.

Although the complaint has not been settled, it will be a long and arduous process to resolve this matter with the EEOC. 

All companies should review their employment screening policy and process to adhere to the "New Guidelines" published by the EEOC.  

EEOC Issues Enforcement Guidance On the Use of Arrest and Criminal Conviction Record in Employment Screening

The EEOC issued their Enforcement Guidance today, April 25, 2012, on how arrest and criminal conviction records can and should be used by employers with regards to hiring.  

The guidance document can be found at www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/arrest_conviction.cfm.

We encourage you to please take the time to read this document.  Should you have questions, please feel free to reach out to us at anytime for further discussion.

Background Checks & Credit Reports

 On March 13th, Commissioner Victoria Lipnic of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) spoke at an event on "Due Diligence, Background Checks and Employment: Protecting the Safety of Employees, Customers and At-Risk Populations." Lipnic stated that the EEOC is "likely" to issue new guidance to employers on the use of both criminal history and credit background checks in the near future.

Regarding criminal history, Lipnic noted that the EEOC was unlikely to establish a strict rule about the specific period of time after which a conviction could no longer be considered in making employment decisions. Lipnic, however, cautioned that employers should avoid "blanket" bans on hiring individuals with criminal convictions as such bans could have a disparate impact on certain minority groups.

The event was hosted by the National Association of Professional Background Screeners, the Consumer Data Industry Association, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

(http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/lipnic.cfm)

FTC Sends Warning Letters to Background Companies Using Mobile Apps

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued warning letters to several companies that have designed and implemented easy background checks thru mobile devices.  In the letter the FTC states that the apps could violate consumer reporting laws.


The letter states the following:

"Under the FCRA, a company is a consumer reporting agency (CRA) if it assembles or
evaluates information on consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third
parties. Consumer reports include information that relates to an individual's character,
reputation or personal characteristics and are used or expected to be used for employment,
housing, credit, or other similar purposes. For example, when companies provide information to
employers regarding current or prospective employee's criminal histories, they are providing
consumer reports because the data involves the individual's character, general reputation, or
personal characteristics. Such companies, therefore, are acting as CRAs in this capacity and
must comply with the FCRA. .....

The Commission reserves the right to take action against you based on past or future law
violations; your practices also may be subject to laws enforced by other federal, state, or local
law enforcement agencies. A violation of the FCRA may result in legal action by the FTC, in
which it is entitled to seek injunctive relief and/or monetary penalties of up to $3,500 per
violation."  says the FTC.

"The FTC and EEOC have stepped up efforts to enforce the Fair Credit Reporting Act.  With the adoption of the internet and the amount of data that can be accessed by companies, Credit Reporting Agencies (CRA's) must take additional steps to ensure the accuracy and efficacy of the data they report.   This cannot happen if the companies making these apps aren't reviewing the applicants records to ensure that they are held to the state and federal rules and standards." says Bill Whitford, CEO of S2Verify.

"Although I applaud the technology initiative, there can be steps taken to review the information before it is reported."  ... Bill Whitford

About S2VERIFY:
S2Verify is a leading process innovator in the application of background screening and employment screening technologies to the needs of business and individuals for employee and tenant information that is comprehensive in scope, delivered quickly to key managers, and easy to read, understand and use by authorized personnel. With offices in Atlanta, Chicago and Miami the privately-held company specializes in providing a customizable yet fully integrated, best-in-class set of background screening services that address business and consumer needs either poorly met or not met at all by leading, nationally-branded providers of mass-market background screening solutions

Pepsi Beverage Co. Pays $3.1 Million For Using Arrest Records

Pepsi Beverage Co was sued by the EEOC for using arrest records to disqualify approximately 300 applicants.    Recently the EEOC has held hearings on the use of arrest records and background checks to ensure they don't create a disparate impact for Black Americans and Hispanics.

"Companies absolutely need to review their Employment Screening Policies and also take note of using arrest records that do not have a conviction for employment decisions on an applicant."  said, Bill Whitford, CEO of S2Verify.    "As an industry, we are seeing more litigation around disparate impact and not following the FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act) and state laws and regulations.  It is critically important that your Employment Screening Vendor gives you all the facts and follows these rules to ensure 100% compliance."
 
"The FCRA and state laws limit the use of arrest records in making hiring decisions.   In addition, there are many state specific rules around what a CRA (Consumer Reporting Agency) can report to a client."  

"We see many new clients that still don't understand the limitations or complexity of following these rules and regulations.  There previous provider simply didn't keep them informed."

About S2VERIFY:
S2Verify is a leading process innovator in the application of background screening technologies to the needs of business and individuals for employee and tenant information that is comprehensive in scope, delivered quickly to key managers, and easy to read, understand and use by authorized personnel. With offices in Atlanta, Chicago and Miami the privately-held company specializes in providing a customizable yet fully integrated, best-in-class set of background screening services that address business and consumer needs either poorly met or not met at all by leading, nationally-branded providers of mass-market background screening solutions.

How to Stimulate the Economy and Create Jobs

With the recent recession and all the hard times of many American's, there has been a lot of movement by local states and the EEOC to ban credit checks for employment purposes.   Statistically, credit checks are not used very often for the mass number of background checks performed.   In fact, only 13% of  companies  perform credit checks on all their applicants.  

Also, there is no correlating data that suggest a bad credit score is an indication that someone will steal from the company.   That being said, I am still shocked that the average person doesn't realize that employee theft is a serious problem.
Consider statistics from the American Society of Employers:

• Businesses lose 20% of every dollar to employee theft.
• 20% of employees are aware of fraud at their companies (including theft of office items, false claims of hours worked, and inflated expense accounts).
• The average time it takes for an employer to catch a fraud scheme is 18 months.
• 55% of perpetrators are managers.
• 44% of workers say their companies could do more to reduce fraud.
• The U.S. Retail Industry loses $53.6 Billion a year due to employee theft.
• 60% of companies have staff trained to deal with fraud and ethics issues (up from 30% in 2000).

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates that 75% of all employees steal at least once, and that half of these steal again and again. The Chamber also reports that one of every three business failures are the direct result of employee theft.

Also, 30% of businesses fail due to employee theft.   This is a serious problem for our economy and jobs. In fact, most small companies do not perform  employment screening.  Background Screening could stop a lot of loses and improve business and hiring. Imagine if those 30% of businesses continued to operate and hired employees.