ENACTED LEGISLATION
CALIFORNIA: California enacts law regarding employment verification
Summary: California has enacted a law that applies when employers are verifying employment authorization in accordance with Section 1324a(b) of Title 8 of the United States Code. The new law makes it unlawful for an employer to request more or different documents than are required under federal law, to refuse to honor documents tendered that on their face appear to be reasonably genuine, to refuse to honor documents or work authorization based upon the specific status or term of status that accompanies the authorization to work, or attempt to reinvestigate or reverify an incumbent employee’s authorization to work using an unfair immigration-related practice.
Impact(s): California employers
View source document

DELAWARE: Delaware amends background check law with respect to paramedics
Summary: Delaware has amended its background check law with respect to paramedics.
Impact(s): Delaware paramedic employers
View source document

HAWAII: Hawaii amends its background check law with respect to child care
Summary: Hawaii has amended its background check law with respect to child care to bring state law into alignment with changes to the federal Child Care and Development Block Grant, P.L. 113-186. The new law requires DHS to conduct background checks, including sex offender registry checks, on household members and all employees of child care facilities and providers that are licensed or registered by or receive subsidies from the State.
Impact(s): Hawaii child care facilities 
View source document
 
COURT OPINIONS
U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA: California judge issues tentative ruling to approve a settlement in an FCRA class-action lawsuit against a McDonald’s operator 
Summary: A U.S. District judge issued a tentative ruling to approve a deal to settle an FCRA class-action lawsuit against a McDonald’s operator. The deal proposed by the plaintiff would be approved, pending some changes, to end the suit which claims that the defendant failed to provide applicants with the “standalone” disclosure and pre-adverse notices required by the FCRA.
Impact(s): FCRA compliance – for general legal review
View source document

U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA: Minnesota federal court grants motion to dismiss FCRA claim 
Summary: A Minnesota Federal court dismissed a claim that the defendant willfully violated the stand-alone disclosure requirement of the FCRA. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Spokeo ruling, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the claim arguing that the plaintiff did not demonstrate he suffered a concrete injury. The court agreed, holding that the plaintiff failed to allege more than a technical violation of the FCRA and therefore did not allege a sufficient injury to establish Article III standing.
Impact(s): FCRA compliance – for general legal review
View source document
 
OTHER UPDATES
FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT: Class action lawsuit filed against Wyndham Vacation Ownership Inc. for alleged FCRA violations
Summary: A proposed class-action lawsuit was filed against Wyndham Vacation Ownership Inc. for allegedly taking adverse employment action against plaintiff and other putative class members based on undisclosed consumer report information without first providing plaintiff and other affected class members with a copy of the pertinent consumer report, and without first providing them a reasonable opportunity to dispute the information in the report.
Impact(s): FCRA compliance – for general legal review
View source document

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION: OSHA issues memo to clarify employers’ post-accident drug testing rights in light of recently promulgated reporting rule for work-related injuries and illnesses
Summary: On Oct. 19, OSHA issued a memo to clarify its recently promulgated reporting rule for workplace injuries and illnesses. In the memo, OSHA reiterated that the rule does not prohibit employers from drug testing employees who report work-related injuries or illnesses so long as employers have an objectively reasonable basis for testing. When evaluating whether an employer had a reasonable basis for drug testing an employee who reported a work-related injury or illness, the central inquiry will be whether the employer had a reasonable basis for believing that drug use by the reporting employee could have contributed to the injury or illness. Further, OSHA clarified that it will only consider whether the drug test is capable of measuring impairment at the time the injury or illness occurred where such a test is available. Therefore, at this time, OSHA will consider this factor for tests that measure alcohol use, but not for tests that measure the use of any other drugs. Finally, OSHA will not issue citations under section 1904.35(b)(1)(iv) for drug testing conducted under a state workers’ compensation law or other state or federal law. The rule becomes effective on Dec. 1, 2016.
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.