71
Background Checks and the Fair Credit Reporting Act: Key Issues for North America Employers Wednesday, April 8, 2015
Background Checks and the Fair Credit Reporting Act: Key Issues for North America Employers
Wednesday, April 8, 2015
Moderator Henry M. Perlowski, Partner Arnall Golden Gregory Atlanta, GA [email protected]
Speakers
2
Erin Kuzz, Partner Sherrard Kuzz Toronto, Ontario [email protected]
Montserrat C. Miller, Partner Arnall Golden Gregory Washington, DC [email protected]
Speakers
3
Jeffrey S. Siegel, Partner Morgan, Brown & Joy Boston, MA [email protected] Mary Ellen Simonson, Partner Lewis Roca Rothgerber Phoenix, AZ [email protected]
Speakers
4
An Employer’s Background Screening Responsibilities
Pros/Cons of Using an Outside Screening Company
Mitigating the Risks of Non-compliance with FCRA
“Ban the Box” Measures and their Impact on Employers
Montserrat C. Miller
Arnall Golden Gregory 5
• What is the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)? – 15 U.S.C. § 1681 – Controls the activities of: Consumer reporting agencies (CRAs)
Users of consumer reports
Furnishers of information for consumer reports
Fair Credit Reporting Act
6
• When and how can employers conduct background checks under the FCRA? – “Permissible purpose” and consumer reports;
– Use of a CRA versus an employer conducting their own background check;
– A consumer report is obtained for an “employment purpose” when used “for the purpose of evaluating a consumer for employment, promotion, reassignment or retention as an employee”; and
– The FCRA provides special protections when consumer reports are used for employment purposes.
The FCRA and Employers
7
• Consumer reports can include items such as: credit, criminal history, drug testing, education, employment verification and public record information.
• Reports regarding a person’s credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristic, and mode of living can be consumer reports for purposes of the FCRA.
Consumer Reports
8
• Before obtaining a consumer report: – Applicant/employee must be notified in writing
by a stand-alone document; – Employer must seek consent from the
applicant/employee prior to obtaining a consumer report; the consent can be an “evergreen” consent that authorizes consumer reports to be obtained throughout the individual’s employment except in VT;
FCRA Requirements for Employment-Related Determinations
9
• Before obtaining a consumer report (cont’d): – Employer must provide certifications to the
CRA that it: Has notified and obtained consent from the
applicant/employee;
Will comply with the FCRA requirements; and
Will not use information in the report to violate any applicable Federal or State EEO law or regulation.
FCRA Requirements for Employment-Related Determinations
10
• What is an “adverse action”? – An adverse action is a denial of employment
or any other decision for employment purposes that adversely affects any current or prospective employee made, in whole or in part, on the basis of information in a consumer report.
FCRA Requirements
11
• Before taking an adverse action: – Notify the applicant/employee; – Provide a copy of the consumer report relied
on to make the employment decision; and – Include a copy of, “A Summary of Your Rights
Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.”
FCRA Requirements
12
• After taking an adverse action: – Notify the applicant/employee of employment decision; – Provide the name, address, and phone number of the
CRA that supplied the consumer report; – Include a statement that the CRA that supplied the
report did not make the decision to take the adverse action and cannot give specific reasons for the decision; and
– Notify the applicant/employee of the right to dispute the accuracy or completeness of any information furnished by the CRA and of the right to request an additional free copy of the consumer report within 60 days.
FCRA Requirements
13
• Contracts • Templates • Certifications • Indemnification • Matrix (job related and consistent with business
necessity – disparate impact) • Reports (presentation of information, arrest
versus convictions, obsolescence and 7 years, state consumer protection statutes)
Hiring a Background Screener
14
• Private litigation – individual and class action claims
• Federal agencies:
Enforcement
15
• Settlements against employers – $2 - $4 million range for paperwork violations.
• FTC enforcement actions against HireRight, Instant Checkmate, and Info Track Information Services in past few years for alleged FCRA violations tied to employment screening.
Litigation
16
• Disclosure and authorization – Stand-alone document – Individual’s consent
• Adverse action – Pre-adverse action step (consumer report and
A Summary of Your Rights Under the FCRA) – Adverse action (no private right of action)
Litigation
17
• What is this? • Who is covered and applicability? • Penalties • Best practices and applicability to overall
background screening program
Ban the Box
18
Selected Topics in State Law Background and Credit Checks
Jeffrey S. Siegel
Morgan, Brown & Joy
19
• In addition to FCRA, employers should be aware that most states and some cities have their own requirements regarding employee background checks. – Seattle, WA and Buffalo, NY
• State laws are often much more restrictive than Federal law.
State Laws Create Additional Obligations for Employers
20
IMPORTANT: • The use of background checks is a hot issue, and
several states have bills pending to limit employers’ ability to get this information. Make sure you are aware of pending laws in your state.
• Specific professions (e.g., those who work with children or at-risk population) may have their own requirements.
• Watch out for notice provisions.
State Laws Create Additional Obligations for Employers
21
California
(CA Labor Code § 1024.5)
Maryland
(MD Labor Code § 3-711)
Colorado
(C.R. S. § 8-2-126 )
Nevada
(N.R.S. 613.570)
Connecticut
(C.G.S. § 31-51tt)
Oregon
(O.R.S. § 659A.320)
Hawaii
(H.R.S. § 378-2.7)
Vermont
(21 V.S.A. § 495i)
Illinois
(820 ILCS 70/10)
Washington
(R.C.W. 19.182.020)
States that Ban Credit Checks Except for Limited Circumstances
22
States that Ban Credit Checks (cont’d)
23
• Common Exceptions to the Ban: remember the phrase “substantially job related.” – Managerial employees; – Employees who handle company funds (e.g.,
signatories on company accounts); – Employees with access to personal information; – Employees with regular access to large amounts of
cash; – Financial institution employees; – Otherwise authorized by state/federal law.
• Example: Colorado defines substantially related – Executive or management position involving one
or more of the following: Sets the direction or control of a business, division,
unit or an agency of the business;
Owes a fiduciary responsibility to the employer;
Has access to customers', employees' or the employer's financial information; or
Has the authority to make payments, collect debts or enter into contracts.
Credit Checks under State Law
24
• Example: Colorado defines substantially related (cont’d) – A position that involves contracts with intelligence,
national security, defense, or space agencies of the federal government.
• Even if a state has not banned an employer from requesting a credit check, the law may still restrict how employers use that information.
Credit Checks under State Law (cont’d)
25
• Like credit checks, the use of criminal records in employment decisions is a hot topic, and many states are adopting restrictions.
• Beware of automatic disqualifications, which may violate anti-discrimination laws.
Using Criminal Records for Employment Decisions under State Law
26
• New York (N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 160.60; N.Y. Exec. Law §296; N.Y. Correct. Law c. 43, Art. 23-a) – Criminal record should not bar employment unless a
direct relationship exists between an offense and the job, or the person would present unreasonable safety risk to property, specific individuals, or the general public.
– List of factors to consider prior to making employment decision. Individualized inquiry
Select State Laws for Criminal Background Checks
27
• New York (N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 160.60; N.Y. Exec. Law §296; N.Y. Correct. Law c. 43, Art. 23-a) – Certificate of Good Conduct creates a presumption
of rehabilitation. – Cannot inquire into or act on information about an
arrest not resulting in conviction or that resulted in a “favorable outcome” for the person involved, unless such inquiry is permitted by law.
– If employer requires a background check, employee must be given a copy of Article 23-A.
Select State Laws for Criminal Background Checks
28
• Wisconsin (Wis. Stat. § 111.335, as amended) – Employers are generally prohibited from asking
applicants or employees about arrests not resulting in convictions, unless charges are still pending.
– Employers may not discharge or deny employment solely because of an arrest or conviction record that doesn't substantially relate to the job sought or currently held.
Select State Laws for Criminal Background Checks
29
• Pennsylvania (18 Pa. C.S. §§ 9101 et seq.) – Employer may consider felony and misdemeanor
convictions only to the extent they relate to the applicant’s suitability for the specific position.
– Employer may not deny employment on the basis of an arrest not resulting in conviction.
– Applicant must be notified in writing if decision not to hire was based, in whole or in part, on criminal history.
Select State Laws for Criminal Background Checks
30
• Massachusetts (M.G.L. c. 151B, §4) – Employers may not consider or request information
regarding: An arrest, detention, or disposition regarding any
violation of law in which no conviction resulted; A first conviction for drunkenness, simple assault,
speeding, minor traffic violations, affray, or disturbance of the peace; or
Any misdemeanor conviction five or more years old, unless employee had another conviction within five years of background check.
Select State Laws for Criminal Background Checks
31
• In 2012, Massachusetts reformed process for obtaining and using criminal history information – 803 CMR 2.00; 803 CMR 11.00
• New obligations include: – Register organization with MA Dept. of Criminal
Justice Information Services; – CORI policy if conduct 5 or more checks per year; – Training; – MA Acknowledgment form; – Pre-adverse action letter and process.
Massachusetts CORI Reform
32
• Arkansas • California • Colorado • Illinois • Louisiana • Maryland • Michigan • Nevada
• New Hampshire
• New Jersey • New Mexico • Oklahoma • Oregon • Rhode Island • Tennessee
• Utah • Virginia • Washington • Wisconsin
States that Restrict an Employer’s Access to Social Media Passwords
33
Use of Criminal History Records for Employment-Related Background
Checks
Mary Ellen Simonson Lewis Roca Rothgerber
34
• “National data supports a finding that criminal record exclusions have a disparate impact based on race and national origin.”
• EEOC will “investigate Title VII disparate impact charges challenging criminal record exclusions.”
• Advises (directs) employers to develop a “targeted screen” and provide an “opportunity for individualized assessment.”
EEOC Guidance – April 2012
35
• EEOC’s enforcement activity in this area has been hit-or-miss.
• More often than not, litigation has resulted in favorable outcomes for the employer.
• That said, beware – certain steps will help you to avoid being a target of the EEOC.
• Still some important pending cases.
Enforcement Activity
36
• Facts: In 2009, EEOC sued Freeman, a large event-planning company, alleging the company’s use of criminal history had a disparate impact on male, African-American, and Hispanic applicants. – Side Note: EEOC sued three years before issuing
its updated Guidance. EEOC will not necessarily wait to issue guidance or clarification before bringing suit!
EEOC v. Freeman, 961 F. Supp. 2d 783 (D. Md. 2013)
37
• Facts (cont’d): – Also: EEOC’s investigation of Freeman began as
an investigation into the company’s use of employees’ credit history, and was later expanded to include the use of criminal history. Be aware that the information you provide to the EEOC during an investigation can change the scope of the investigation!
EEOC v. Freeman, 961 F. Supp. 2d 783 (D. Md. 2013)
38
• District court ultimately granted Freeman’s MSJ. – Numerous examples of “material errors and
unexplained discrepancies” in expert’s statistical evidence, including one “egregious example of scientific dishonesty” in which the expert “cherry-picked” individuals from discovery materials to inflate statistics in EEOC’s favor.
– National statistics alone insufficient to support the claim, as unrepresentative of the potential applicant pool.
– Characterized EEOC’s claim as “a theory in search of facts to support it.”
EEOC v. Freeman (cont’d)
39
• Fourth Circuit recently affirmed on appeal. EEOC v. Freeman, 778 F.3d 463 (4th Cir. 2015).
EEOC v. Freeman (cont’d)
40
• Disparate impact claims rise and fall on statistical evidence, and courts take a critical look at this evidence.
• Contrary to position taken in EEOC Guidance, if “national data” does not reflect relevant applicant pool, EEOC probably cannot rely on such data.
• Experienced defense counsel and experts will be able to look for trends and deficiencies in data to contradict EEOC’s own statistical evidence.
Key Takeaways from Freeman
41
• Facts: – EEOC investigated Peoplemark, a temporary-
employment agency, for its use of applicant’s criminal history.
– During investigation, one of Peoplemark’s senior officers incorrectly informed EEOC that Peoplemark had a company-wide policy of denying employment to felon applicants.
EEOC v. Peoplemark, 732 F.3d 584 (6th Cir. 2013)
42
• Facts (cont’d): – EEOC continued to investigate and prosecute
the claim on that basis, despite having received documentation showing this statement to be incorrect.
• Sixth Circuit affirmed district court’s $750,000 award of fees and costs against the EEOC.
EEOC v. Peoplemark, 732 F.3d 584 (6th Cir. 2013)
43
• Case arose because of a misstep in communicating with the EEOC. – Ensure that all communication during an
EEOC investigation comes through defense counsel, or at least through someone familiar with employment discrimination laws and investigative procedures.
Key Takeaways from Peoplemark
44
• In January 2012, EEOC announced that Pepsi Beverages agreed to pay $3.13 million to settle a potential lawsuit over its criminal background check policy.
• According to EEOC, Pepsi had a policy of denying employment to applicants who: (1) had been arrested pending prosecution, even if they had never been convicted of any offense; and (2) had been arrested or convicted of certain minor offenses.
EEOC’s Investigation of Pepsi
45
• Policies and practices that appear to be facially at odds with updated EEOC Guidance pose increased risk of exposure.
• Policies and practices that incorporate Guidance are much more likely to be defensible, as evidenced by Freeman and Peoplemark cases.
Key Takeaways from Pepsi
46
• Two cases remain ongoing: – EEOC v. BMW Mfg. Co., No. 7:13-cv-01583
(D.S.C.). – EEOC v. Dolgencorp LLC (Dollar General), No.
1:13-cv-04307 (N.D. Ill.).
• EEOC filed both complaints on same day in June 2013; both cases allege that company use of criminal background screening disproportionately impacted minority applicants.
Ongoing Enforcement Efforts
47
• Both cases currently mired in discovery disputes. • Interestingly, the court in the BMW matter ordered
EEOC to turn over information about its own background check policies and practices. – The Freeman court also found notable that the EEOC
conducts criminal background investigations as a condition of employment for all employees.
– Dollar General has also moved to compel discovery of EEOC’s background check practices, along with EEOC’s statistical analyses proving disparate impact.
Ongoing Enforcement Efforts
48
• Could potentially help undermine an EEOC claim that an employer’s practices have a disparate impact on protected groups when EEOC itself employs the same or similar practices.
Ongoing Enforcement Efforts
49
• Despite EEOC’s track record, criminal background checks continue to be a hot-button issue. – Develop a targeted screen and implement the
individualized assessment explained in Guidance. – By implementing such measures, EEOC
“believes employers will consistently meet the ‘job-related and consistent with business necessity’ defense.”
Practical Tips
50
• Documentation is key. – Have appropriate written policies and
procedures in place for use of criminal history. – Contemporaneous notes explaining
employment decisions and reasons for decisions critical to rebut charge of discrimination.
Practical Tips
51
• Cooperation during an investigation is important, but don’t give away the farm. – Limit who communicates with EEOC, and do
not give more information than necessary. – This limits risk of exposure and risk of EEOC
expanding the scope of its investigation. • Experienced and competent defense counsel
will likely be able to effectively rebut EEOC’s statistical evidence.
Practical Tips
52
Key Issues Facing Canadian Employers Relating to Background
Checks and Critical Differences across the Border
Erin Kuzz
Sherrard Kuzz
53
• Opportunities and challenges in hiring – Privacy considerations – Human rights issues – Background checks
Finding the Right “One”
54
• Human rights legislation in Canada protects candidates in hiring process – Advertisements, application forms, interviews,
hiring decision, background checks, etc.
• Federal and provincial human rights legislation
• Balance to be struck between wants and needs versus exposure to claim
Too Much Information?
55
• Some jurisdictions have safeguards for protecting personal employee information.
• Examples of personal information an employer may collect, use, and store during hiring:
Protection of Personal Information
56
• Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) – Federally regulated companies (i.e., banking,
telecommunications, transportation sectors) for all information collected (includes employee information)
Protection of Personal Information
57
• Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) – For provincially regulated employers: Unless province enacted “substantially similar”
privacy legislation, PIPEDA applies to personal information in course of commercial activity. o ON, MB, SK, NB, NS, NL and PEI
Likely doesn’t include administration of employment relationship for provincially-regulated employers.
Protection of Personal Information
58
• Only three provinces have enacted “substantially similar” privacy legislation – British Columbia (Personal Information Protection
Act) – Alberta (Personal Information Protection Act) – Quebec (An Act Respecting the Protection of
Personal Information in the Private Sector)
Protection of Personal Information
59
• What background checks do you perform and for which positions?
• Types of background checks: – Reference check – Credit check – Criminal record check – Social Media check – Drug and alcohol testing
Background Checks
60
• Effective method to learn about candidates • Employers can check any source that seems
appropriate, not limited to references offered by the candidate
• Consider potential privacy legislation issues
Reference Checks
61
• Generally permissible, but an employer must: – Notify the applicant in writing of credit check – Identify agency providing credit check
• Candidate may frame credit history as prohibited ground: – “Social disadvantage/condition/inclusion” or
“source of income” MB, PEI, NL, QC, AB, YT, and NWT
– In other provinces, it could also be related to newcomer status, disability, family breakdown, etc.
Credit Checks
62
• Jones v Tsige (ONCA) – Created the tort of invasion of privacy
• Post Jones – Unionized employer in Alberta held liable for inappropriately conducting credit checks on employees without their knowledge or consent (2012) – Each affected employee was awarded $1,250
Credit Checks
63
• Pre-employment credit checks have also been challenged in Alberta (2010) – Such credit checks for a retail employer were
not reasonable – no evidence applicant’s credit history provided reliable information about whether a job applicant would commit theft or fraud.
Alberta Information and Privacy Commissioner (2010) Investigation Report P2010-IR-001
Credit Checks
64
• Some – but not all – jurisdictions prohibit discrimination due to criminal record – Federal, BC, Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland,
Manitoba, PEI, YT, NU and NWT • The rules and extent of protection among
these provinces vary: – Charge versus conviction – “Unrelated to employment”
Criminal Record Checks
65
• Ontario employers may discriminate on basis of “record of offences” unless: – Pardon/conviction has been granted – Conviction is for a provincial offence
• In the other provinces, employer may generally discriminate if there is a relationship between record and the job – What is related and/or “reasonable” discrimination
depends on job and nature of the offence (or charges)
Criminal Record Checks
66
• Facebook, Twitter, Instagram – Permissible to ask for password – Make appropriate use of social media – Consider information you might find that is
irrelevant or illegal to rely on Family status, disability, union affiliation
• Have someone else not making the final decision do the check
Social Media Checks
67
• Pre-employment drug and alcohol testing is generally not permissible – Testing only reveals past behaviour; it does
not predict future behaviour • Drug or alcohol addiction (whether or not
presently using), and ‘perception of addiction’ are disabilities – Be careful what you wish for!
Drug and Alcohol Testing
68
• Get the candidate’s consent • Limit any checks to information that can
reasonably impact the candidate’s ability to perform the job – Critically assess usefulness of information
• Make offer of employment conditional on satisfactory background check
• If applicable, implement privacy safeguards
Best Practices
69
Erin Kuzz Jeffrey S. Siegel Sherrard Kuzz Morgan, Brown & Joy Toronto, Ontario Boston, MA [email protected] [email protected] Montserrat Miller Mary Ellen Simonson Arnall Golden Gregory Lewis Roca Rothgerber Washington, DC Phoenix, AZ [email protected] [email protected]
Please contact our speakers for more information
70
Please complete the survey that should appear on your computer screen when you disconnect from the webinar.
To listen to this webinar again or to any past ELA webinars, please visit our website at: www.employmentlawalliance.com.
The ELA is not authorized to give continuing education credit for its webinars; however, a Certificate of Attendance and supporting materials are posted on the ELA website (click this webinar’s title; the link to the Certificate is on the landing page). Attendees seeking continuing education credit should submit these materials directly to the appropriate organization.
Please Complete our Survey
71
