Saddle Up, Montana: Original 2024 State Privacy Laws Get a Makeover in 2025
Montana implemented the Montana Consumer Data Privacy Act (MCDPA) on October 1, 2024. The law regulates businesses that produce products or services...
With Verified Credentials' mobile-first candidate experience, you meet candidates where it's most convenient. Learn how easy we make it.
|
Now offering DOT services!Get your drivers on the road quickly and meet DOT regulations. |
Gain clarity about your compliance responsibilities with our new Adverse Action Guide! Use the interactive map to learn what regulations apply in your area.
Verified Credentials is a leading background screening company. Since 1984, we’ve helped validate and secure relationships through the use of our comprehensive screening solutions. We offer a wide variety of background checks, verifications, and innovative screening tools.
Our accreditation confirms that our policies, processes, and employee training meet rigorous industry compliance standards.
2 min read
Verified Credentials Aug 26, 2022 12:00:00 AM
Background check disclosure and authorization requirements can often be a source of confusion for employers, and violations may lead to potential lawsuits. Another lawsuit has been filed alleging violations of federal and state disclosure and authorization requirements – Nunley v. Cardinal Logistics Management Corporation.
Tony Nunley first filed a complaint against Cardinal on May 11, 2022, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernadino. The case was removed to the US District Court for the Central District of California on July 19. The filing removing the case to federal court states that, among other things, Nunley claimed the company’s background check disclosure and authorization forms violated three laws:
In the initial complaint, Nunley claims that Cardinal “at times, obtained and used information in consumer reports to conduct background checks on prospective and existing employees which failed to comply with the requirements under the FCRA.” The alleged violations of the FCRA include, among other things:
The complaint also alleges that Cardinal failed to provide a clear and conspicuous disclosure in writing before procuring background reports, as required by ICRAA. Additionally, the complaint alleges that Cardinal obtained “consumer credit reports,” as that term is defined by California law, and failed to provide a disclosure that contained all the requirements of the CCRAA.
The proposed class for this case includes all current, former, and prospective employees of Cardinal who applied for a job with Cardinal and whose background check was performed up to 5 years before the complaint filing.
According to the federal court filing:
“Based on the claims alleged in the Complaint in the State Court Action, Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of himself and the putative class, an assortment of alleged damages, including, but not limited to, punitive damages, statutory penalties, declaratory relief, interest, attorney fees, and costs.”
This lawsuit is still pending. Verified Credentials will attempt to provide updates as they become available.
Montana implemented the Montana Consumer Data Privacy Act (MCDPA) on October 1, 2024. The law regulates businesses that produce products or services...
For a second time this year, the state of Washington has enacted efforts to create a fair hiring landscape for Washingtonians. We previously covered ...
A bill to legalize medical marijuana in Kentucky has been in the queue for quite some time, but it was not until earlier this year that the...
Amazon is busy this time of year. But a recent court filing may leave it busier than usual. A prior Amazon employee claims the retailer violated a...
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has recently issued a few well-publicized decisions on Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) disclosure and...
Last updated on 12-1-2023. Employers should be wary of the increasing number of Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) lawsuits brought against them. The...