ENACTED LEGISLATION
CALIFORNIA: California enacts law that gives individuals a private right of action to bring a claim against an employer who uses the E-Verify program for pre-screening purposes
Summary: In California, an unlawful employment practice has been expanded to include pre-screening of job candidates through use of the E-Verify system and not providing E-Verify generated notices specific to an individual’s E-Verify case. This means that individuals now have a private right of action, which they can enforce in state court. It can result in a civil penalty up to $10,000 for each violation if an employer is found to have engaged in an unlawful employment practice.
Impact(s): California employers
View source document
PENNSYLVANIA: Pennsylvania enacts new law to limit information released as part of employment-related criminal background checks
Summary: The new law requires law enforcement agencies to remove records of arrests or the filing of criminal charges where at least three years have elapsed from the time of the arrest, no conviction occurred and there are no pending proceedings seeking a conviction. Also, individuals with criminal records can now petition their county’s Court of Common Pleas to enter an order granting limited access to their criminal record. In order to obtain such an order, a person must be either free from arrest for 10 years, or released from incarceration for 10 years, whichever occurred later.
Impact(s): Pennsylvania employers
View source document
 
COURT OPINIONS
U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS: Court denies Sprint’s motion to dismiss in FCRA class action
Summary: Sprint’s motion to dismiss an FCRA class action was denied, with an Illinois judge ruling that failure to prove actual harm does not defeat the lawsuit. Sprint is accused of violating the FCRA by asking employees to waive an array of privacy rights.
Impact(s): FCRA compliance—for general legal review
View source document
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT: Court rules that applicant’s background check claims are time barred
Summary: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that a job applicant was time-barred from pursuing claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, reasoning that the FCRA’s statute of limitations requires claims to be commenced no later than two years after the date of discovery of the violation that is the basis of liability, or five years after the date on which the violation occurs—whichever date falls earlier.
Impact(s): FCRA compliance—for general legal review
View source document
 
OTHER UPDATES
FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT: Proposed class-action lawsuit filed against Dave & Buster's for alleged FCRA violations
Summary: A proposed class-action lawsuit has been filed against Dave & Buster's that alleges the company uses background checks to make employment decisions without following the Fair Credit Reporting Act’s pre-adverse and adverse action processes.
Impact(s):FCRA compliance—for general legal review
View source document
FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT: Proposed class-action lawsuit filed against Penn National Gaming for alleged FCRA violations
Summary: A proposed FCRA class action lawsuit has been filed against Penn National Gaming for allegedly failing to make a proper disclosure when it pulls the credit reports of employees and applicants.
Impact(s): FCRA compliance—for general legal review
View source document
FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT: FCRA class-action lawsuit filed against CPC Logistics for alleged FCRA violations
Summary: An FCRA class-action lawsuit was filed against CPC Logistics for allegedly failing to notify applicants or employees after taking adverse action against them based on information found in their background checks.
Impact(s): FCRA compliance—for general legal review
View source document
CLASS ACTION: Uber agrees to settlement in proposed class action involving the quality of its driver background checks
Summary: Uber agreed to a $28.5 million settlement to resolve a proposed class action filed in California federal court that accuses the company of misleading consumers about its “safe rides fee” and the quality of its driver background checks.
Impact(s): All employers
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.

© 2016 Truescreen, Inc. All Rights Reserved.