Employment Fairness Act for Returning Citizens in Prince George’s County, MD
The Prince George's Employment Fairness Act for Returning Citizens is a new law in Prince George's County, Maryland, designed to provide fair...
With Verified Credentials' mobile-first candidate experience, you meet candidates where it's most convenient. Learn how easy we make it.
Ongoing monitoring of driving records can help employers avoid risk and improve driver safety. Learn about the benefits of adding Verified Credentials' newest solution to your screening strategy.
Learn the latest trends in employment background checks. This report uses real-life usage data to uncover how employers are screening across industries.
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
Admin April 20, 2020
We have previously written about Gilberg v. California Check Cashing Stores, LLC, a recent decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that dove into the disclosure requirements for employers that use background screening companies to get background reports (also known as consumer reports) on employees and applicants.
By now, you probably are aware of the Fair Credit Reporting Act’s (FCRA) disclosure requirements that were addressed in the Gilberg case. As a reminder, before obtaining a background report from a background screening company on an applicant or employee, an employer must:
These disclosure requirements have been the source of confusion, debate, and multiple court interpretations. The Ninth Circuit is adding to the debate yet again with its latest interpretation of these requirements in the recently decided Walker v. Fred Meyer, Inc. case. To read the court’s decision, click here.
The Walker court found that some provisions of the defendant employer’s disclosure document did violate the standalone disclosure requirement of the FCRA, while other provisions did not. Importantly, the court established a new standard for interpreting whether language in a disclosure document is extraneous. According to the court’s decision, “…beyond a plain statement ‘that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes,’ some concise explanation of what the phrase means may be included as part of the disclosure…”
According to the court, this new “concise explanation” standard may allow additional information to be provided in the disclosure document, potentially including:
While this decision does make an allowance for some concise, explanatory language to be included in FCRA-required disclosure document, the court also noted that the sky isn’t the limit. Employers should be aware that too much information in a disclosure document is still a violation of the FCRA’s standalone disclosure requirement.
The court held that language in a disclosure document “…included in good faith in order to provide additional useful information about an applicant’s rights to obtain and inspect information about … [the background screening company’s] investigation of, and file about, the applicant” constitutes a violation of the FCRA, as “[t]his language, however, may ‘pull the applicant’s attention away from his privacy rights protected by the FCRA by calling his attention to the rights’ that he has to inspect … [his] files.”
In addition to the in-depth discussion of an employer’s FCRA disclosure requirements, the court also briefly touched on an employer’s pre-adverse action requirements under the FCRA. For details on pre-adverse and adverse action requirements, you may want to visit our previous discussion on this topic here. The Walker court held that the FCRA’s pre-adverse action requirements do not require that an applicant/employee be provided an opportunity to discuss their consumer report directly with the employer before adverse action is taken.
The Walker decision impacts the jurisdictions within the Ninth Circuit. However, it may not be a stretch to imagine that other courts could adopt the Ninth Circuit’s standards for FCRA disclosure and pre-adverse action compliance. This case should give employers more to think about when they’re putting together their disclosure forms, as well as pre-adverse action notices. Of course, it’s always a good idea to discuss your employment practices with your legal counsel to make sure all your documents and employment practices fit with the latest court interpretations of applicable laws.
The Prince George's Employment Fairness Act for Returning Citizens is a new law in Prince George's County, Maryland, designed to provide fair...
As of July 1, 2024, Colorado’s Clean Slate Act, or Senate Bill 22-099, is officially in effect.This comes in the wake of several other states that...
The Texas Attorney General’s office has recently announcedthe formation of a dedicated task force within its Consumer Protection Division. This task...
The legal landscape surrounding background checks seems to be constantly changing. With the multitude of Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) lawsuits...
You’re probably aware of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) disclosure and authorization requirements for employers that want to obtain...
The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) outlines the fundamental federal requirements for employment background checks done by consumer reporting...