Legislative Alert

ENACTED LEGISLATION

PHILADELPHIA, PA: Background screening ordinances amended and expanded

Summary: On January 20, 2021, three bills were signed amending Philadelphia's Fair Criminal Record Screening Standards (FCRSS) and credit ban ordinances. Bill No. 200479 specifically relates to employment as it expands the definition of covered "employee" to include "any person employed or permitted to work at or for a Private Employer within the geographic boundaries of the City." Additionally, the bill expands the restriction on use of criminal convictions to current employees, rather than just applicants. Bill 200413 and 200614 impose new requirements related to credit reporting, effective on March 21, 2021. Bill 200479 takes effect April 1, 2021.

Impact(s): Philadelphia employers

View source document

PROPOSED LEGISLATION

NEBRASKA: Bill introduced to prohibit employers from asking an applicant salary history questions

Summary: LB 249 has been introduced, which would prohibit an employer from asking an applicant about their salary history unless to confirm the wage rate voluntarily disclosed by the applicant during the interview.

Impact(s): All employers

View source document

COURT OPINIONS

U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA: Major transportation company settles background check suit

Summary: In 2016, a suit was filed alleging that a major transportation company ("employer") violated the Federal Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and the Pennsylvania Criminal History Record Information Act ("CHRIA"). The class action stated that the employer deliberately did not hire applicants with prior felony drug convictions and rescinded job offers after the convictions were revealed. The employer argued that it did not violate the FCRA because the employer only revoked the job offers after applicants disclosed their criminal history, before a background check was performed. The employer further argued that it hadn't violated the CHRIA because the employer had rejected the applicants based on the fact that they were not suitable for the positions available, i.e. bus operators and mechanics. Although the case was dismissed in 2017, the proposed class members were permitted to amend the complaint two times.

The employer agreed to settle the class action for $3.6 million dollars and rescind its alleged ban on job applicants with prior drug convictions. The employer further agreed to prioritize hiring approximately 300 proposed class members who were not hired due to their criminal history.

Impact(s): FCRA compliance - general legal review

View source document

OTHER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA: County's motion to dismiss granted in claim alleging violation of the ADA, and the PHRA.

Summary: Plaintiff filed a suit against Allegheny County alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. Plaintiff stated that he was refused a job based on failing a drug test due to his use of medical marijuana, even though he had told the human resources representative that he used medical marijuana because of a medical condition. Plaintiff was told it would not be a problem. The County stated in its motion that Plaintiff was not denied the position solely for the positive drug test, but because "marijuana is a Schedule 1 'controlled substance' under the Federal Controlled Substance Act," and that anyone tasked with upholding the law cannot be in violation of this Act. The County argued that it could hold stricter standards for its employees because it is a law enforcement agency. The County further argued that Plaintiff did not request accommodation for his condition, but for his medical marijuana use, which is not a 'physical or mental impairment.' Additionally, the County stated that there were no facts to support that he was denied the job because of an inability to perform the duties of the job because of a foot impairment.

The Court granted the County's motion to dismiss.

Impact(s): Pennsylvania law enforcement facilities

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.