FTC Issues Guidance to Landlords for the Use of Consumer Reports

The FTC has issued a publication that helps landlords understand the proper steps to take when using background checks.  Much like its guidance, Background Checks: What Employers Need to Know, this publication details the obligations of users of consumer reports under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The guidance details what a consumer report is, what is required before the use of a consumer report, and the proper adverse action steps.

The FTC defines a Consumer Report as any information about a person’s credit characteristics, rental history, or criminal history. These reports include:

•          A credit report from a credit bureau, such as Trans Union, Experian, and Equifax or an affiliate company;
•          A report from a tenant screening service that describes the applicant’s rental history based on reports from previous landlords or housing court records;
•          A report from a tenant screening service that describes the applicant’s rental history, and also includes a credit report the service got from a credit bureau;
•          A report from a reference checking service that contacts previous landlords or other parties listed on the rental application on behalf of the rental property owner; and
•          A report from a background check company about an applicant or tenant’s criminal history.

Before Getting a Consumer Report

The guidance puts an emphasis on permissible purpose. Permissible purpose means that landlords have a legitimate business need that requires a background check. In the case of landlords, they must only use consumer report information for the purpose of screening applicants and/or tenants who apply for rental housing or renew a lease. While written consent is not required from applicants, it is a great way for landlords to prove they have permissible purpose for the use of a consumer report.

The FTC notes that landlords should avoid a blanket policy of refusing to rent to anyone with a criminal history, as it may violate the Fair Housing Act.

Adverse Action

It is important to note that adverse action does not only consist of the denial of an application. Adverse action also includes:

•          The necessity for a cosigner on a lease if an applicant does not meet the income requirements;
•         The requirement of a deposit that would not be required for another applicant;
•         The requirement of a larger deposit than might be require for another applicant; and
•         Raising the rent to a higher amount than for another applicant.

Whether an employer or a landlord, one thing remains constant. You must provide the applicant notice that you are taking adverse action (any of the measures listed above) and the reasons for the action. While the notice can be given orally, in writing, or electronically, we recommend that the notice is given in writing for auditing purposes. Please note that an adverse action notice is required even if the consumer report wasn’t the primary reason for the decision. If the consumer report played any part in the decision making process, the applicant/tenant must be notified.

The Adverse Action Notice must include:

• the name, address, and phone number of the consumer reporting company that supplied the report;
• a statement that the company that supplied the report did not make the decision to take the unfavorable action and can't give specific reasons for it; and
• a notice of the person's right to dispute the accuracy or completeness of any information the consumer reporting company furnished, and to get a free report from the company if the person asks for it within 60 days.

To view the guidance in full, click here.

The Truth About Fingerprint Checks

Fingerprint checks are required by the state for many industries, education for instance, and are thought of as one of the most reliable ways to screen job candidates. And with mandatory fingerprint checks in place in many states, people have no choice but to buy into this misconception. And when I say, “buy into this misconception," rest assured that you are paying for it. The state of Washington, for example, charges $45.75 for fingerprint background checks. If you think that is bad, in the state of New York fingerprint background checks can cost up to $102. So with costs that high, surely fingerprint checks are the most comprehensive, accurate way to screen applicants. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

In truth, it is an unreliable, faulty way to vet new employees. Issues include:

·         An incomplete FBI database that is missing as many as 50% of its criminal records

·         Irregular updates to fingerprint-based records that cause the information to be far from current

·         An inclusion of arrest records that, according to the FCRA, are not to serve as a basis for employment decisions without a conviction based on that arrest

·         Unlike a background report from a consumer reporting agency based on personal identifiers (Name, DOB, SSN, etc.), FBI reports do not allow the individual to challenge the results

An example of an FBI rap sheet

So with this many problems, how is it possible that states and municipalities are still passing legislation requiring the use of this defective method of employment screening? Well, that all boils down to legislators who do not understand the inadequacies of this method of screening. Until legislators are made aware of these shortcomings, many industries are forced to continue use of this inaccurate screening procedure.

If your company is not a part of an industry that falls under the umbrella of state-mandated fingerprint checks, we recommend a criminal background check that uses personal identifiers to match convictions, and only convictions, to the right individual. This method of screening is FCRA-compliant, more accurate, and more reasonably priced.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

S2Verify is an NAPBS-accredited process innovator in the application of integrated hiring solutions and employment screening technologies. S2Verify’s services cater to the needs of organizations that rely on employee and volunteer information that is comprehensive in scope, delivered quickly to key managers, and easy to read, understand, and use by authorized personnel. Headquartered in Atlanta with Operational Support Centers in Miami and Chicago, the privately-held company specializes in providing a customizable yet fully integrated, best-in-class set of applicant tracking, drug screening, and criminal background checks 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. The focus on addressing shortcomings in the background screening industry attributed to S2Verify’s inclusion in the Inc. 500’s list of fastest growing companies in the United States.

FTC Issues New Guidance on Background Screening for Consumer Reporting Agencies

A new guidance titled “What Employment Background Screening Companies Need to Know About the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)” has been released by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to better define the responsibility background screening firms have to clients and consumers in general. Background reports are described by the FTC as consumer reports under the FCRA as they “serve as a factor in determining a person’s eligibility for employment, credit, insurance, housing, or other purposes which include information on a consumer’s credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living.”

The responsibilities of consumer reporting agencies under federal law are stated as such:

·         Following reasonable procedures to assure accuracy

·         Getting certifications from clients

·         Providing clients with information about the FCRA

·         Honoring the rights of applicants and employees

Following reasonable procedures to assure accuracy

The release of this guidance tells you one thing. Many consumer reporting agencies are not taking reasonable measures to ensure that the report is accurate. Ensuring accuracy means a couple of different things. One, the background screening company needs to make sure that the information obtained relates to the individual in question. And two, the information obtained has not been expunged or otherwise sealed.

Essentially, our duty to our clients and consumers alike is to provide background information that can be directly linked to the applicant/employee through personal identifiers, and the report consists of strictly convictions as opposed to arrest records. Individuals should not be punished for an arrest that did not result in a conviction. That is why our adjudication team verifies any information found in a national criminal database search at the county level.

Getting certifications from your clients

Basically, CRAs need to make sure that their clients have a permissible purpose to obtain the background report. In this case, permissible purpose means that the background check is used solely for the determination of employment. Therefore, background screening companies must get confirmation from their clients that:

1)      The employer notified the applicant and got the applicant’s written permission to get a background report

2)      The employer will comply with the FCRA requirements; and

3)      The employer won’t discriminate against the applicant or employee, or otherwise misuse the information in violation of federal or state equal opportunity laws or regulations

It is for this reason that clients are firmly vetted before the use of our services. Once it is confirmed that the client is a business using our services solely for employment purposes, they must sign an agreement that states that they will comply with FCRA requirements, including attaining consent prior to conducting a background check. Consent forms are stored for auditing purposes.

Providing your clients with information about the FCRA

Clients must receive information about their responsibilities under the FCRA. The document “Notice to Users of Consumer Reports” must be provided to each client to ensure they know what is required of them under the statute. One such responsibility of employers is informing every applicant or current employee of their consumer rights in terms of background screening. This information, known as “A Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act”, is to be provided to each applicant/employee undergoing a background check.

Honoring the rights of applicants and employees

Because the use of consumer reports can bar individuals from employment, credit, insurance, or housing, it is important for consumers to know their rights. These rights are protected under the FCRA due to the major impact inaccuracies can have on an individual’s ability to obtain employment. The following is a list of consumer rights under the FCRA:

·         You must be told if information in your file has been used against you

·         You have the right to know what is in your file

·         You have the right to dispute incomplete or inaccurate information

·         Consumer reporting agencies must correct or delete inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable information

·         Consumer reporting agencies may not report outdated negative information

·         Access to your file is limited

·         You must give your consent for reports to be provided to employers

·         You may seek damages from violators

To read the FTC guidance in full, click here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NAPBS Executive Director Urges Public Agencies Not to Remove Birth Date from Public Records

Melissa Sorenson, the executive director of the National Association for Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS), recently wrote an article detailing the importance of background screening firms having access to personal identifiers in public records. In a measure to prevent identity theft, many federal, state, and local public agencies have been considering the removal of essential personal identifiers, such as the date of birth, from court records. The Iowa State Court Administration is one of the agencies that has recently proposed this resolution. The unintended consequences of redacting such information, however, is a limitation of background screeners’ ability to properly obtain critical information essential to timely hiring and leasing decisions.

With many individuals sharing the same name, the person’s full date of birth ensures that the public record is correctly matched to the right individual. The accuracy of a background screening firm’s results relies heavily on the DOB. Without it, our reports would not be the accurate, comprehensive data that clients depend on to make personnel decisions. 

Background checks are vital to the safety of residents, employees, and volunteers. Not only that, limiting access to this data would essentially result in employers stuck between a rock and a hard place. Option one would be receiving lengthy reports based on the limited identifiers, containing criminal records that may or may not apply to the applicant. That’s not a great option. Option two would be to exclude information obtained based on limited identifiers, which could result in the hiring of an individual that does have a criminal record. Missing a conviction for a violent offense is a risk that many employers cannot take. 

Background screening providers, especially those accredited by the NAPBS, understand the importance of protecting this information and are bound by strict regulations determined by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Our employees are trained in proper use of and protection of potentially identifying information. Melissa Sorenson urges that agencies such as the Iowa State Court Administration seriously weigh the impact this would have for people trying to find work or housing. We will keep an eye on this issue as it continues to unfold.

To read Melissa Sorenson’s article 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/

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.

FCRA Compliance: Reviewing Your Disclosure and Authorization Forms

    We would like to stress the importance of carefully reviewing the Disclosure and Authorization forms ("Authorization") that are sent to job applicants prior to obtaining background checks. You should ensure that these Authorizations do not include any indemnification or release provisions. 

    Recently an individual in California filed a class action lawsuit seeking to hold both a prospective employer and the CRA that provided a consumer report to that employer liable for failing to comply with the requirements of Section 604(b)(2) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

    The Authorization that the employer used contained language asking applicants to indemnify and release both the CRA and the employer from any claims that may arise from the collection, disclosure or use of the information provided on the Authorization form. Similar release language, sometimes called a hold-harmless clause, has been the subject of many claims against employers. 

    Class action lawsuits alleging violations of the FCRA are on the rise. Therefore, please be certain that the Disclosure and Authorization forms that you provide to job applicants do not include any type of indemnity, release, or hold-harmless language."

Thanks for your attention to this important compliance matter.

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.

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. 

Litigation Brought Against Whole Foods for FCRA Violations

                  

On February 7, 2014, litigation was brought against Whole Foods for the use of invalid authorization forms in the background screening process. The lawsuit claims the “defendant obtained consumer reports on the plaintiff and similarly situated persons without having obtained factually valid FCRA authorization forms”. 

The online application process included a form labeled “Consent”. Whole Foods allegedly had a section in this form that states “I hereby release the company, my former employers and all other persons, corporations, partnerships and associations from any and all claims, demands or liabilities arising out of or in any way related to such investigation or disclosure.” The form also included other paragraphs that should not be part of a consent form. 

The plaintiff claims that a valid consent form was used, but not until after Whole Foods had already implemented a background check.

The invalid consent forms were allegedly used on thousands of applicants. Should this class action suit be successful, Whole Foods may be paying upwards of $1000 to each class member for the violation. 

FCRA Violations:

1) A consent form, which informs the consumer that a background check may be obtained as a condition of employment, must be signed by the applicant. The consent form, which consists of the required disclosures and requested authorization, cannot include any extraneous information. Including a section in the form about the releasing of liability for companies receiving or providing information for the background check is definitely not legal.

2) When the plaintiff allegedly received the valid consent form is also an FCRA violation. An applicant must sign a valid consent form BEFORE the background check is run, NOT after. 

$1000 per applicant is not something many companies can afford. Precaution should be taken to insure the consent form utilized does not include anything other than the disclosures and requested authorization. Also, get authorization BEFORE you run the background check on the applicant. As always, you should discuss this topic with your in house counsel.

If you have any comments or questions about FCRA compliance, please let us know.

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.

Large National Retailer Settles Class Action for $3 Million

A large retailer reached a settlement for $3 million dollars over allegations that it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).  The allegation stated that the large retailer failed to notify over 64,500 applicants and give them  due process to dispute the accuracy of the information contained in the Consumer Report.

The FCRA clearly states that you must notify an applicant if a "Consumer Report" contains derogatory information about the applicant and give them time to dispute or correct the information prior to making a final determination on their employment.   It further states that you must give the applicant the contact information of the Credit Reporting Agency (CRA).  This process is defined as pre-adverse action.

It is alleged that the large retailer bypassed this step in the process and simply notified the applicants of the adverse action or their potential denial of employment.

As a reminder to employers, you are obligated to follow the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) as well as state laws.

The obligation for the employer under the FCRA:

1) Provide the applicant with a separate "Disclosure and Consent" form.
2) Ensure that your consent covers any additional State Laws if they applicant is located in that state.
3) Give the applicant access to the "Summary of Rights" that was updated as of January 1, 2013.
4) If their "Consumer Report" contains derogatory information that will affect their employment, notify the applicant with pre-adverse action and let them know what Credit Reporting Agency to contact to clear up any information that is inaccurate. 
5) If the information is accurate and you determine that the applicant is not suited for a specific job, then notify the applicant of adverse action and again give the applicant the name of the CRA and another copy of the "Summary of Rights."

For more information regarding the employers responsibility, please refer to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Modified "Summary of Rights" goes into effect January 1, 2013

The entire focus here is on wording which modifies whose authority governs the notice process..... Our forms within the system will be in full compliance as of the effective date, 1-1-2013 For our clients that  handle their own notice and disclosure, you will be required to make the changes regarding the governing body, should the consumer want to contact them.  ( CFPB V FTC )
 According to regulations from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFP, three essential forms mandated by the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) used in the background screening process must be modified by January 1, 2013. The forms must be changed to reflect that consumers can obtain information about their rights under the FCRA from the CFPB instead of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The three forms in use currently indicate that the FTC is the agency consumers can contact with questions.
The three forms at issue are:

• Summary of Consumer Rights under the FCRA
• Notice to Users of Consumer Reports of their Obligations under the 
• Notice to Furnishers of Information of their Obligations under the FCRA

Each of the three notices is mandated for use in certain situations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act:

• The “Summary of Consumer Rights under the FCRA” is a notice that a background screening firm must provide to an employer and employers in turn must provide the notice to applicants in different situations.
• The FCRA also mandates that a background screening firm (known as a Consumer Reporting Agency or “CRA”) must provide each user of its services the “Notice to Users of Consumer Reports of their Obligations under the FCRA.”
• The “Notice to Furnishers of Information of their Obligations under the FCRA” is aimed at certain furnishers of information to CRAs and must be provided in prescribed situations such as a re-investigation where the consumer disputes the report or in a situation involving identity theft.

The changes are the result of the creation of the CFPB as part of the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub.L. 111-203, H.R. 4173) that was signed into law by President Barack Obama on July 21, 2010. The CFPB has rule making and enforcement powers over the FCRA. However, the CFPB does not have supervisory power over background screening firms. Congress specifically exempted background screening firms from being supervised by the CFPB since a background check report is not a financial product. The result may be some confusion as the CFPB and FTC determine which agency will perform which tasks.
The primary difference is that instead of listing the FTC contact information, the CFPB contact information is utilized in the form.

Click here to get a copy of the new "FCRA-Summary of Rights 2013"

FTC Issues Employers Guidance for FCRA

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued Employers Guidance for the use of Consumer Reports. 

While this information is not new, the Guidance is another step by the Federal Government, both the FTC and EEOC, to ensure that companies are following the Fair Credit Reporting Act(FCRA).

Please review these brief guidelines to ensure your company is in compliance.

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.

New Class Action Lawsuit against Major Financial Institution for FCRA Violations

A class action case filed against a large financial institution – one of the nation’s top 10 banks – shows once again that legal compliance is a critical part of any background screening program.  The lawsuit was filed on behalf of an employee alleging violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). According to a press release from the Attorneys for the Plaintiff, the lawsuit alleges that the financial institution obtained background checks in violation of the FCRA and failed to provide required notices.  The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all of the financial institution’s employees and job applicants for the past three years.

The lawsuit – filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland – alleges the financial institution violated the FCRA in two ways:

• First, the lawsuit alleges that the financial institution’s authorization form is flawed. The law imposes strict formatting requirements on companies who do background checks. The Plaintiff alleges that by burying its background check authorization in a job application, including extraneous information, the financial institution violated the FCRA. The FCRA requires that a consumer receive a “clear and conspicuous” disclosure in a document that consists solely of the disclosure that a background report may be obtained for employment purposes. 
• Second, the lawsuit also alleges that the financial institution failed to provide copies of the background reports when it used them to take adverse employment actions, such as refusing to hire an applicant, refusing to promote an employee, or terminating an employee. The FCRA requires employers to provide consumers with copies of their background checks if the employer intends to take adverse action that is based in any part on the background check report, along with a statement of rights prepared by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), so consumers have an opportunity to contest any information they feel is inaccurate or incomplete.  If the employer proceeds to take adverse action, a second post-adverse action notice is required.

Based on the Attorneys for the Plaintiff’s understanding of the financial institution’s practices, everyone who has applied or worked for the financial institution in the past three years should be eligible to receive statutory damages if the lawsuit succeeds. Additional information about the case can be found at www.nka.com/case/capital-one-fair-credit-reporting-act/

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 attorneys fees and the potential exposure to punitive damages.  A United States Supreme Court case decided in June 2007, Safeco Ins. Co. v. Burr, substantially increased the risk of punitive damages under the FCRA by ruling that a reckless disregard of the FCRA could be sufficient to show “willful” non-compliance.

FTC Issues Report: "Forty Years of Experience with the Fair Credit Reporting Act"

The Federal Trade Commission today issued a staff report, that compiles and updates the agency’s guidance on the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the 1970 law designed to protect the privacy of credit report information and ensure that the information supplied by credit reporting agencies is as accurate as possible. A credit report contains information about a consumer’s personal and credit characteristics, character, and general reputation and is used to make credit, employment, insurance and other decisions.

"The employment screening rules and regulations continue to change and this will have an impact on our industry" says Bill Whitford, CEO of S2verify, LLC.

The new staff report, entitled “Forty Years of Experience with the Fair Credit Reporting Act: An FTC Staff Report and Summary of Interpretations,” provides a brief overview of the FTC’s role in enforcing and interpreting the FCRA and includes a section-by-section summary of the agency’s interpretations of the Act.

The FTC is also withdrawing the agency’s 1990 Commentary on the FCRA, which has become partially obsolete since it was issued 21 years ago. The 1990 Commentary was comprised of a series of FTC statements about how it would enforce the various provisions of the FCRA. Since 1990, the FRCA has been updated several times, most significantly by the Consumer Credit Reporting Reform Act of 1996 and the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, known as the FACT Act. Both updates expanded the provisions of the FCRA.

The new staff report deletes several FTC interpretations in the 1990 Commentary that have since been repealed, amended, or have become obsolete or outdated. It also modifies some interpretations in the 1990 Commentary, and adds several interpretations reflecting changes that Congress has made to the FCRA over the years, rules issued by the FTC and other agencies under the FACT Act, statements in numerous staff opinion letters, and the staff’s experience from significant enforcement actions.

Recent legislation has transferred the authority to issue interpretive guidance under the FCRA to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFP. Withdrawing the 1990 Commentary now will ensure that this obsolete document does not transfer to the CFPB.


The Commission vote approving the staff report on the FCRA and withdrawing the 1990 Commentary was 5-0. The report and Federal Register notice can be found on the FTC’s website and as links to this press release. More information for consumers about the FRCA can be found here.

Company Settles "Class Action Lawsuit" for $4.3 million

The company failed to follow the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by first obtaining written consent to conduct background checks and second they failed to offer the applicants a copy of their report or the Credit Reporting Agency's (CRA) contact information to obtain a copy.

The proposed settlement would pay the worker that was terminated because of a background check between $2,000 and $4,000 each.

This company was a subcontractor to a large metropolitan school district and provided transportation for children. 

Maybe it is time for you to reevaluate how you perform your employment screening, your consent, and how you notify your applicants of the outcome.  In addition, you should understand what your current CRA is providing and how it is impacted by the FCRA and State Laws.

Recently, we were preparing a consent for a new client.  After reviewing several Fortune 500 companies existing consents, we found NONE of them were in compliance with both the FCRA and the state regulations.  

Companies need to understand that these types of lawsuits and actions by the Federal Trade Commission over violations of the FCRA and state regulations will continue.