Legislative Alert

ENACTED LEGISLATION

CALIFORNIA: California passes law requiring background checks on individuals contracting with a school district

Summary: The state has enacted a law providing that an individual operating as a sole proprietor of an entity that has a contract with a school district is considered to be an employee of the entity for purposes of certain criminal background check requirements. School districts are required to prepare and submit that employee's fingerprints to the Department of Justice.

Impact(s): California school districts

View source document

ILLINOIS: Illinois governor rejects two employment-related measures

Summary: Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner has vetoed HB 2462 – a proposal that would have prohibited employers from asking job applicants about prior wage or salary history.

Rauner also vetoed SB 1720 – a measure that would have increased penalties for employer wage theft.

Impact(s): Illinois employers

View source document

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Amended law allows temporary employment of certain healthcare personnel pending results of criminal background checks

Summary: The state of New Hampshire has amended its background checks law relative to certain healthcare workers – allowing for temporary employment in a residential care facility or as a licensed nursing assistant by persons awaiting the results of a criminal history background check.

Impact(s): New Hampshire healthcare providers

View source document

PUERTO RICO: New guidelines issued governing equal pay in the workplace

Summary: The Puerto Rico Secretary of Labor and Human Resources issued and made effective the Uniform Guidelines for the Self-Assessment of Equal Pay in the Workplace. These guidelines were enacted pursuant to the mandate of two separate pieces of legislation: (1) Act No. 16-2017, creating Puerto Rico's Equal Pay Act ("PR EPA"); and (2) Act No. 61-2017, which requires certain government contractors to demonstrate compliance with the PR EPA.

Impact(s): Puerto Rico employers

View source document

COURT OPINIONS

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT: Ninth Circuit Appellate Court holds that a statutory violation under the FCRA may, without more, establish a concrete injury for purposes of Article III Standing

Summary: The Ninth Circuit has opined, again, on whether a statutory violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") – by itself – constitutes a concrete injury for Article III standing purposes. The court held that in certain circumstances, an alleged violation of a consumer's statutory rights under FCRA, alone, is sufficient to establish a concrete harm for purposes of Article III standing. The court ruled that in evaluating whether a claim of harm is sufficiently concrete to establish Article III standing, it must determine: (1) whether the statutory provisions at issue were established to protect concrete interests (as opposed to purely procedural rights), and if so, (2) whether the specific procedural violations alleged actually harm, or present a material risk of harm to, such interests.

Impact(s): FCRA compliance – for general legal review

View source document

OTHER UPDATES

FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT: Class action filed against employer for alleged FCRA violations

Summary: A proposed class-action lawsuit filed in Florida claims a company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) when it procured background reports on employees and job applicants without first providing the individuals with a "standalone" disclosure and without following the FCRA's "pre-adverse" action requirements.

Impact(s): FCRA compliance – for general legal review

View source document

VIRGINIA: Virginia Bureau of Insurance reminds insurers of obligations when terminating agents or licensees

Summary: The Commonwealth of Virginia's Bureau of Insurance recently distributed a bulletin to request that insurers review their appointment terminations to determine whether any were improperly terminated for cause. The bulletin was distributed after the Bureau learned that a number of appointments had been terminated "for cause" when in fact the reason for termination was not a reportable reason under the Commonwealth's code.

Impact(s): Virginia insurers

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.