| Summary: Because an employer may have known about the criminal histories of two African-American employees for months, if not years, before firing them for lying about their convictions on their employment applications, a reasonable fact finder could conclude the reason for terminating them was pretextual, a federal court in Pennsylvania ruled, denying summary judgment against their race discrimination claims. |
| Impact(s): For general legal review |
| Summary: A school bus driver who was fired after failing a random drug test, and who failed to provide any medical documentation supporting her claim that she had taken a doctor-prescribed pain killer after her shift on the date in question, failed to defeat summary judgment on her federal and state-law disability bias and failure-to-accommodate claims as there was no evidence suggesting pretext or that another job was available. |
| Impact(s): FCRA compliance – for general legal review |
Summary: The New York Court of Appeals (the highest state court in New York) was asked to determine the standard for finding a defendant liable for punitive damages under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), and concluded that punitive damages are appropriate in cases with "conduct having a high degree of moral culpability which manifests a conscious disregard of the rights of others or conduct so reckless as to amount to such disregard." This standard requires neither a showing of malice nor awareness of the violation of a protected right. The court's decision now makes clear that the standard for punitive damages under the NYCHRL is broader, and more plaintiff-friendly, than under Title VII.
NYCHRL encompasses New York City's "Fair Chance Act," which governs background checks, and includes several provision that impact employers, including "Ban the Box" (with a requirement that employers delay asking applicants for authorization to obtain a background check until after a conditional offer of employment is made) as well as additional pre-adverse requirements that go beyond the FCRA.
|
| Impact(s): New York employers |
Summary: An Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a putative FCRA class claim against a major university on the basis that the plaintiffs lacked standing to assert their no-injury, statutory claim in Ohio state court. The state appellate court declined to adopt a "statutory standing" doctrine in Ohio that would allow standing for a federal statutory claim without the existence of an alleged injury-in-fact.
The plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, had filed suit under the FCRA. They alleged that as part of their application and hiring process, the university provided a background check disclosure and authorization to each of them that improperly included extraneous information and a liability release in violation of the FCRA's "stand-alone" disclosure requirement.
|
| Impact(s): FCRA compliance – for general legal review |
| Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court on refused to take up a challenge to a Ninth Circuit decision that revived an FCRA suit against an employer, passing up an opportunity to address questions over the interpretation of last year's Spokeo decision. The high court's decision to deny the petition for writ of certiorari lets stand a Ninth Circuit decision from January that plaintiff Sarmad Syed had alleged an injury sufficient to establish Article III standing under the Supreme Court's May 2016 decision in Spokeo. The Ninth Circuit ruled that Syed had met that bar by alleging that the employer unlawfully placed a liability waiver on forms disclosing to job applicants that the company may obtain their consumer reports. |
| Impact(s): FCRA compliance – for general legal review |
