• In-person contact
• In-home contact
• Access to personal property
• Access to confidential information

The bill codifies senior protections that the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) implemented in October, 2020.

The law requires each applicable agency to conduct a national and state sex offender registry search in addition to a criminal history check (e.g., ICHAT search through the Michigan State Police). Local agencies will further be required to update the checks every three years and maintain applicable documentation pertaining to all individuals subject to mandatory background checks.

Several safeguards have been incorporated into HB 764 (now Act 12) pertaining to child care providers to ensure those hired to work with children are monitored closely during the provisional period. One safeguard of the Act stipulates that "the employer, administrator, supervisor or other person responsible for employment decisions requires that the applicant not be permitted to work alone with children and that the applicant work in the immediate vicinity of a permanent employee" until the individual passes the criminal background check requirements.

Safeguards also include requiring that employers have "no knowledge of information pertaining to the applicant which would disqualify him from employment;" the applicant must affirm the same in a written statement. Disqualifying information includes convictions for a list of serious crimes including (but not limited to) homicide, kidnapping and rape. In the event any of the listed crimes are ultimately reported on the final criminal background check, the law requires employers to immediately terminate the individual.

Following her termination, Plaintiff filed suit against the employer, claiming disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act ("PHRA"). Ultimately, the Pennsylvania federal court dismissed all claims for a number of reasons, including that the employer did not have prior knowledge of the employee's disability nor did the company regard the employee as an illegal drug user. Furthermore, the court contended that the employer's drug testing policy did not impose a disparate impact on qualified persons with disabilities nor did it constitute an impermissible medical inquiry.