Legislative Alert

ENACTED LEGISLATION

MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND: Ban the Box Legislation amended

Summary: Effective February 19, 2021, Bill 35-20 will expand the scope of the 2014 "Ban the Box" law by prohibiting background checks until after a conditional job offer has been extended. The bill will also prevent inquiries about certain crimes altogether. The term "employer" is redefined to include all employers in the county except those who provide services to minors or the vulnerable.

Impact(s): Montgomery County employers

View source document

PROPOSED LEGISLATION

PHILADELPHIA, PA: Proposal to ban pre-employment drug testing for marijuana

Summary: Bill 200062500 was introduced on November 12, 2020 which would add a new Chapter 9-4700 to Title 9 of the Philadelphia Code. The new law would prohibit employers from performing marijuana testing of prospective employees. Exempt employees include: employees working as police officers or in other law enforcement positions, employees whose position requires a commercial driver's license, positions requiring the supervision or care of children, medical patients, disabled or other vulnerable individuals, and employees working in any position that could significantly impact the health or safety of other employees or members of the public. In addition, Chapter 9-4700 would not apply to federal or state regulations requiring drug testing for safety or security purposes; any contract between an employer and the federal government or applicants whose prospective employer is party to a valid collective bargaining agreement where pre-employment drug testing is addressed.

Impact(s): Philadelphia employers

View source document

COURT OPINIONS

U.S. DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS: Court dismisses claim for FCRA violation

Summary: Plaintiff filed a claim against her ambulance service employer after one year of employment claiming retaliation against her for complaining of sexual harassment. Included in the complaint was also a claim that the employer violated the FCRA's "stand alone" requirement by including a liability waiver and other additional language on its disclosure form. The court found that the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate an "injury-in-fact" to prove a cause of action and dismissed her claim. The court stated that a "violation of the FCRA's stand-alone document requirement does not automatically cause a concrete injury for purposes of Article III standing. In doing so, the court joins the vast majority of other courts that have so held."

Impact(s): FCRA compliance - for general legal review

View source document

This document and/or presentation is provided as a service to our customers. Its contents are designed solely for informational purposes, and should not be inferred or understood as legal advice or binding case law, nor shared with any third parties. Persons in need of legal assistance should seek the advice of competent legal counsel. Although care has been taken in preparation of these materials, we cannot guarantee the accuracy, currency or completeness of the information contained within it. Anyone using this information does so at his or her own risk.