| ENACTED LEGISLATION |
| CONNECTICUT: Legislature enacts law to prohibit salary history inquiries |
| Summary: Signed by Gov. Dannel Malloy on May 22, HB 5386 prohibits an employer from inquiring into or from directing a third party to inquire about a prospective employee's wage and salary history unless a prospective employee has voluntarily disclosed such information. The law will not apply to any actions taken by an employer, employment agency or employee or agent thereof pursuant to any federal or state law that specifically authorizes the disclosure or verification of salary history for employment purposes. It does not prohibit an employer from inquiring about other elements of a prospective employee's compensation structure, as long as the employer does not inquire about the value of the elements of such compensation structure. |
| Impact(s): Connecticut employers |
View source document
|
|
| FLORIDA: Florida amends fingerprinting requirements for insurance licensing |
Summary: HB 1073 has been amended and the changes will become effective on July 1, 2018. One of the changes relates to fingerprinting requirements. Currently, fingerprints are valid for one year. The amendment will change this requirement as follows:
- After July 1, 2018, if an individual applicant is currently licensed and he/she is seeking an additional license and he/she has been fingerprinted within the last four years, he or she will not be required to get fingerprinted again.
- If the individual applicant is not currently licensed when he/she applies, then the one year time frame still applies.
|
| Impact(s): Florida insurance licensing |
View source document
|
|
| KANSAS: Governor signs bill authorizing national fingerprint-based background checks for healthcare facilities |
| Summary: Kansas passed a law, signed by the governor on May 10, 2018, that will allow the Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services Health Occupations Credentialing program to conduct national fingerprint-based background checks on all prospective employees that will provide staff to any adult care home, home health agency, health center or facility, or hospital. It will allow for criminal records from other states to be available for review regardless of the applicant's state of residence. The bill amends three existing criminal record-check statutes to level all offenses and timeframes that disqualify or prohibit an individual from working in a health care setting and also sets the length of time that needs to pass before an individual is eligible for employment. |
| Impact(s): Kansas healthcare facilities |
View source document
|
|
| MAINE: Marijuana Legalization Act enacted; Question 1's off-duty marijuana use provision removed |
| Summary: The Maine Legislature overrode a second veto by Gov. Paul LePage and enacted the Marijuana Legalization Act. The Act modifies the legislative framework created by Question 1, the voter referendum passed in November 2016, which first legalized recreational marijuana in Maine and prohibited employers from taking actions against applicants based on off-duty marijuana use. Most significantly, the Act scrapped the anti-discrimination provision from Question 1, so it no longer expressly prohibits employers from refusing to employ persons who use recreational marijuana outside of work. Instead, the Act states that employers "are not required to permit or accommodate the use, consumption, possession, trade, display, transportation, sale or cultivation of marijuana or marijuana in the workplace" and allows employers to "enact and enforce workplace policies" restricting marijuana use "in the workplace or while otherwise engaged in activities within the course and scope of employment." |
| Impact(s): Maine employers |
View source document
|
|
| VERMONT: Vermont bans salary history questions |
Summary: On May 11, 2018, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott signed legislation restricting employers from making salary history inquiries. The new law, H. 294, effective July 1, 2018, prohibits asking a prospective employee about or seeking information regarding his or her compensation history. For these purposes, compensation includes base compensation, bonuses, benefits, fringe benefits and equity-based compensation. Under the new law, employers are also prohibited from requiring that a prospective employee's current or past compensation satisfy minimum or maximum criteria for employment. If an employer discovers a prospective employee's salary history, the employer may not determine whether to interview the prospective employee based on this information.
The new law carves out a few exceptions to these restrictions. If the prospective employee voluntarily discloses his or her salary history, the employer may seek to confirm or request that the applicant confirm the disclosed salary after making an offer of employment. An employer may also ask a prospective employee about general salary expectations. |
| Impact(s): Vermont employers |
View source document
|
|
| LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY: Mayor signs ordinance banning salary history questions for local government |
| Summary: On May 22, 2018, Mayor Fischer signed an ordinance banning Louisville Metro Government from asking job applicants about their salary history. The ordinance is limited to local government jobs, however, the Louisville Water Company and Sewer Department have agreed to also adopt the policy. |
| Impact(s): Louisville public employers |
|
| YORK, PENNSYLVANIA: York enacts "Ban the Box" policy |
| Summary: The City of York has voted to amend Article 165 to include a "Fair Chance Hiring Policy." The policy will remove the criminal history question from the City of York employment applications and encourages all businesses in the City to remove the criminal history question from their applications as well. |
| Impact(s): City of York public employers |
View source document
|
| PROPOSED LEGISLATION |
| WISCONSIN: Bill proposed to prohibit employers from drug testing for THC |
| Summary: A committee of House Representatives has proposed AB 1005 that would prohibit employers, including the state, from testing employees for THC, the active ingredient in marijuana. The bill would not, however, apply to the drug testing of an employee or prospective employee who is subject to drug testing under: 1) any regulation promulgated by the federal DOT that requires drug testing of an employee or prospective employee or any rule promulgated by the DOT of Wisconsin adopting such a regulation for purposes of enforcing the requirements of that regulation with respect to intrastate commerce; 2) any contract entered into between the federal government and an employer or any grant of financial assistance from the federal government to an employer that requires drug testing of employees and prospective employees as a condition of receiving the contract or grant; 3) any federal statute, regulation, or order that requires drug testing of employees and prospective employees for purposes of safety or security; 4) any substance abuse prevention program under a collective bargaining agreement or under the current law that requires such programs for public works and public utility projects; or 5) rules promulgated by the Law Enforcement Standards Board requiring drug testing of prospective law enforcement officers. |
| Impact(s): Wisconsin employers |
View source document
|
|
| MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN: City proposes salary history ban |
| Summary: Alderman Tony Zielinski proposed a resolution that would ban the City of Milwaukee from asking prospective city employees questions about their salary history questions. |
| Impact(s): City of Milwaukee employers |
View source document
|
| OTHER UPDATES |
| FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT: Class action filed against credit bureau alleging FCRA violations |
| Summary: A proposed class action was filed in Philadelphia on behalf of a plaintiff who alleges that a national credit bureau violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by reporting negative credit information without investigating whether that information was accurate. Plaintiff contends that defendant used a third party vendor to research and collect information regarding the existence of tax liens and judgments, but failed to investigate or have the third party investigate further on whether those liens and/or judgments were satisfied, dismissed or appealed. Plaintiff also alleges that as a result of defendant's willful and reckless disregard for consumers' rights under the FCRA, he suffered damage to his reputation, reduction to his credit score and increased risks of denied credit. |
| Impact(s): FCRA compliance – for general legal review |
View source document
|
|
