| Summary: In a recent case, Arnold, et al. v. DMG Mori USA, Inc., Plaintiffs filed a class action claiming that Defendant did not provide the proper disclosure under the FCRA which states that a disclosure must be (i) "clear and conspicuous," and (ii) "in a document that consists solely of the disclosure."
The court granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs stating that the disclosure form did not meet the FCRA requirements because "(i) it included a description of consumer rights under California, Maine, Minnesota, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Washington state consumer reporting laws; and (ii) even after the form was revised to omit the references to state law, it still violated the standalone disclosure requirement because it contained information about applicants' right to request whether a consumer report has been run about them and to request a copy of their report." The court ordered the parties to schedule a settlement conference between the 668 to 1,138 class members and the Defendant.
|
| Impact(s): FCRA compliance - for general legal review |
| Summary: This claim involved a job applicant who failed a pre-employment drug test due to medical marijuana use. After the employer extended an offer of employment to Applicant who lived in Florida, Applicant requested that his drug test be delayed due to personal matters that he had to take care of. The employer agreed. Before the drug test was performed, Applicant obtained a medical marijuana card in Florida. Applicant provided a letter from the Florida Department of Health of his eligibility for a medical marijuana card but the letter did not contain any information regarding the applicant's condition or reason for the medical marijuana card. When Applicant was finally drug tested, after already starting his job in California, Applicant tested positive for marijuana and was terminated.
Applicant then filed a claim for retaliation, disability discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA") for wrongful termination, failure to accommodate, and failure to engage in the interactive process. However, the Defendant claimed that Applicant was terminated because he could not establish a prima facie case under the FEHA. Applicant failed to provide any medical information as to why he required the medical marijuana card.
The Court granted the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment stating that Applicant failed to provide any supporting documents to establish that "his symptoms did not make the performance of his job duties difficult as compared to his unimpaired state or to a normal or average baseline." The court further stated that Applicant did not "provide any explanation or detail concerning how his chronic back pain limited his ability to work." Because Applicant was able to adequately perform his job duties during the time he was employed by Defendant, the court determined that Applicant's disability did not impact his ability to do his job.
|
| Impact(s): All California employers |
