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.
Employer missteps during the background check process can result in legal action. As we’ve seen before, this often is the result of allegedly failing to meet the Fair Credit Reporting Act’s (FCRA) disclosure and authorization requirements, including:
1. Not providing the applicant/employee with a clear and conspicuous disclosure, in a document that consists solely of the disclosure, that the employer may obtain a Consumer Report about them for employment purposes.
2. Not getting the applicant/employee’s written authorization for the employer to obtain the Consumer Report.
We have previously covered examples where employers are accused of not meeting the FCRA disclosure and authorization requirements. Amazon, Fred Meyer, and DMG Mori are just some examples of companies that have faced lawsuits alleging violations of the FCRA. Here is an example of an extraneous information case.
A California Appeals Court recently reversed a trial court decision that had granted summary judgment in favor of bookstore chain Barnes & Noble, Inc. The appellate court held that there is a triable issue of whether the employer willfully violated the FCRA’s standalone disclosure requirement.
The case stems from job candidate Vicki Hebert. She applied to work for the company in 2018. During her application process, Hebert received a disclosure. Additionally, she gave Barnes & Noble authorization to complete a background check. The disclosure form included a paragraph that stated:
“Please note: Nothing contained herein should be construed as legal advice or guidance. Employers should consult their own counsel about their compliance responsibilities under the FCRA and applicable state law. First Advantage expressly disclaims any warranties or responsibility, or damages associated with or arising out of information provided herein.”
Hebert alleged that this paragraph is extraneous information in violation of the FCRA.
Barnes & Noble moved for summary judgment. It claimed that Hebert could not establish one of the elements of her case, namely that Barnes & Noble’s violation of the standalone disclosure requirement was willful. It argued that the extraneous language in the disclosure was the result of an inadvertent drafting error that occurred while it was revising the disclosure to ensure FCRA compliance. In addition, it argued that it reasonably and in good faith relied on the advice of outside legal counsel when it included the extraneous language in its disclosure, thus precluding a finding of willfulness.
The trial court agreed with the employer and granted Barnes & Noble’s motion for summary judgment. The trial court held that Hebert couldn’t establish willfulness because “the facts here show[ed] nothing more than a mistake.”
A California appellate court overturned the trial court’s ruling.
“Unlike the trial court, we conclude Hebert adduced sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could indeed find that Barnes & Noble’s alleged FCRA violation was willful.”
The court relied upon the following in reaching its holding:
Collectively, the appellate court held the evidence is sufficient to allow a jury to decide whether Barnes & Noble’s purported FCRA violation is “willful.” It remanded the case back to the district court, where Barnes & Noble will have to defend against the claims. Notably, Hebert is attempting to sue on behalf of all individuals for who Barnes & Noble procured a consumer report in the preceding five years.
This case introduces additional analysis on what “willfulness” means related to FCRA violations. That is important because a finding of willfulness allows a plaintiff to recover statutory damages ranging from $100 to $1,000, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees and costs. An affected consumer would only be entitled to actual damages for a negligent violation. Employers may want to review their documents with their legal teams to ensure they are meeting their legal requirements.
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...
Employers often struggle with the many disclosure and certification requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). A recently introduced bill...
The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) outlines the fundamental federal requirements for employment background checks done by consumer reporting...
On January 29, 2020, the United States House of Representatives passed the “Comprehensive Credit Reporting Enhancement, Disclosure, Innovation, and...