Pittsburgh Limits Employer Drug Testing for Medical Marijuana Patients
The Pittsburgh City Council passed an ordinance that significantly limits circumstances in which employers are permitted to administer pre-employment...
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
Verified Credentials Oct 13, 2021 12:00:00 AM
Transportation service giants Uber and Lyft have faced a fair share of attention related to their drivers. Buckley v. Uber claim both rideshare companies failed to comply with federal background check laws. A driver that worked with both companies recently filed a complaint in the Eastern District of New York on August 27, 2021.
The complaint alleges Uber and Lyft, along with their screening provider, Checkr, failed to comply with certain requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). More specifically, it alleges that Uber and Lyft failed to follow the FCRA’s “pre-adverse action” requirements.
If using a background report for employment purposes, before taking any adverse action based in whole or in part on information in the background report, employers are required to provide the candidate with:
1. A notice that includes a copy of the background report
2. A copy of the FCRA Summary of Rights
Providing these documents gives the candidate a chance to review what was found in their background report. Then, if they believe there was an error in the background report, the candidate has the ability to dispute the information.
According to the complaint, driver Donald Buckley had been an Uber driver beginning in 2018. In April of 2021, a background report was ordered by Uber regarding Buckley. Later that month, Buckley “received notice from Uber that there was an issue with his background check. [Buckley] was unable to continue working for Uber with an incomplete background check…”
Regarding his employment with Lyft, the complaint states that Buckley was a Lyft driver beginning in 2019. In June2021, Buckley “received an email communication from Lyft stating that they were unable to complete his annual background check and that additional information was needed. Plaintiff was unable to continue working for Lyft with an incomplete background check.”
The complaint alleges that Uber and Lyft, prior to taking adverse action against him, failed to provide Buckley with either:
The complaint also contains various additional allegations against Uber and Lyft’s background screening provider, Checkr.
Buckley is seeking damages from all three of the defendants. Of course, the allegations against Uber, Lyft, and Checkr remain allegations at this stage in litigation. Verified Credentials will attempt to provide updates on this case as they become available.
The case against Uber and Lyft is a good reminder to employers about their obligations under the FCRA. Employers that use background reports for employment purposes may want to develop a clear plan if they are thinking of taking adverse action based in whole or in part on information from a background report. Learn more about Verified Credentials’ tool to help employers fulfil FCRA pre-adverse action and adverse action requirements. Work with your legal team to create a plan for your situation.
The Pittsburgh City Council passed an ordinance that significantly limits circumstances in which employers are permitted to administer pre-employment...
As AI systems and technology use continue to soar, more regulations and guidelines follow. Utah’s SB 149, also known as the AI Policy Act, mandates...
On September 28, 2024, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 1100, an amendment toCalifornia’s Fair Employment & Housing Act (FEHA), introducing ...
Home improvement store Lowe’s is accused of violating the FCRA. The claims are part of a putative class action suit filed in the Western District of...
The United States’ largest private employer faces a proposed nationwide class action lawsuit based on its screening policy. A complaint filed on July...
We have previously written about Gilberg v. California Check Cashing Stores, LLC, a recent decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that dove...