ENACTED LEGISLATION
SOUTH DAKOTA: Fingerprint checks will soon be required for in-home providers
Summary: The Department of Health Service (DHS) will soon require a fingerprint background check for all employees hired to work in the homes of consumers.

Specifically, in-home health providers will be required to have fingerprinting policies in place for new and current employees. Policies for new employees must be implemented by July 2019 and policies for current employees must be implemented by January 2020. An "in-home provider" might include those "entering the homes of consumers."

Providers may find additional fingerprinting guidance from the DHS Long Term Services and Support (LTSS) Electronic Visit Verification Questions and Answers document:
Following an onsite review last fall, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recommended that South Dakota establish fingerprint background checks for providers that enter the homes of consumers. Currently, providers must conduct a background check to screen for abuse, neglect, and exploitation for all employees hired to work in homes of consumers. Based on CMS' recommendation, LTSS is requiring providers to develop a policy to implement fingerprint background checks for all employees hired to work in the homes of consumers. The policy must be readily available upon request."
Impact(s): South Dakota in-home providers
View source document

PROPOSED LEGISLATION
NEW JERSEY: Legalization of adult recreational marijuana is inching toward enactment
Summary: The New Jersey Senate proposed amendments to S. 2703, the New Jersey Marijuana Legalization Act, leaving the bulk of the act intact and consistent with the New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act (CUMMA). Notably, like CUMMA, the bill would continue to legalize adult recreational marijuana use in New Jersey and allow for the possession of up to one once of dried marijuana, 16 ounces of edible cannabis products, and 72 ounces of cannabis in liquid form and not prevent employers from disciplining or terminating impaired employees and prohibits anyone from operating a vehicle while under the influence of marijuana.

Unlike CUMMA, however, the bill creates a separate cause of action making it unlawful for employers to take "any adverse employment action" against an employee merely because that person uses marijuana. Refusing to hire (or firing) such employees are two actions prohibited by S. 2703. This baseline prohibition is softened by only two caveats:
  • First, an employer may affirmatively assert the defense it has "a rational basis" for the adverse employment action which is "reasonably related to the employment." This presumably includes safety-sensitive positions and instances in which the responsibilities of the current or prospective employee mandate the need for drug-free personnel.
  • Second, employers will remain free to take adverse employment action against an employee if failure to do so places the employer in violation of federal law or causes it to lose a federal contract or funding.
  • But employers must reconcile accommodating employee-alleged disability (that is treated by prescription marijuana) with the competing need to ensure a safe and unimpaired workforce.
Impact(s): New Jersey employers
View source document

PENNSYLVANIA: Proposed bill would require certain healthcare facilities to obtain fingerprints of applicants and employees
Summary: Proposed amendment SB 899 P.N. 1906 states that a facility "shall require an individual to submit … (2) a report of federal criminal history record information … the individual shall submit a full set of fingerprints in a manner prescribed by the department."

The Bill defines a facility as any of the following:
  • Domiciliary care under the Administrative Code of 1929
  • Assisted Living Residence defined under the Human Services Code
  • Personal Care Homes defines under the Human Services Code
  • Home Care Agency
  • Home Care Registry
  • Home Health Care Agency
  • Hospice
  • Long-term care nursing facility
  • Older Adult Daily Living Center
  • Pace Provider defined under the Social Security Act
  • Any public or private entity that used public funds and is paid, in part, to provide care to care-dependent individuals
This proposed Bill requires facilities to obtain fingerprints "within the preceding one-year period" from (1) applicants, (2) employees, (3) administrators having direct contact with a recipient, and (4) operators having direct contact with a recipient.
Impact(s): Pennsylvania healthcare facilities
View source document

NEW ORLEANS: "Ban the Box" legislation is one step closer to becoming law
Summary: A "Ban the Box" ordinance was passed by the New Orleans Committee for Governmental Affairs on September 27 which is designed to prevent city officials and companies that contract with the city from asking job applicants whether they have ever been convicted of a crime. A criminal background check can still occur, but only after a candidate is selected to move forward in the hiring process. The legislation will now go to the full City Council for final approval.
Impact(s): New Orleans public employers and contractors

COURT OPINIONS
U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE: Case alleging FCRA violations made by a credit reporting agency dismissed
Summary: A case was brought against a credit reporting agency alleging that it had violated the rights of a consumer by "inaccurately" reporting certain accounts as being included in bankruptcy with a balance of $0. In October 2012, the plaintiff filed Chapter 13 Bankruptcy and her debt was discharged in June 2017. Her credit report reflected that the accounts were discharged in the bankruptcy and plaintiff filed a dispute. The credit reporting agency refused to change the report stating that the information was provided to them from the account holders. In its opinion, the District Court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, citing guidance from the FTC on a consumer report being accurate for reporting an account discharged in bankruptcy so long as it reports a zero balance is due. It found that the Defendants' reporting of Plaintiff's account was neither inaccurate nor incomplete nor was it materially misleading and dismissed the case.
Impact(s): FCRA compliance – for general legal review
View source document

U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA: FCRA's statute of limitations is enforced
Summary: A Nevada federal court dismissed a plaintiff's FCRA claims against a furnisher, finding that the plaintiff failed to file the action within the FCRA's statute of limitations period. The court noted that the statute of limitations begins to run when a plaintiff discovers the alleged FCRA violation or on the date on which a reasonably diligent plaintiff would have discovered the facts constituting the violation. In this case, the plaintiff disputed the information in question with the consumer reporting agency in August 2014 but did not file suit until January 2017. The Court held that plaintiff should have known about the alleged violation in August 2014 and thus the statute of limitations began to run on that date.
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.

© 2018 Truescreen, Inc. All Rights Reserved.