FCRA Compliance Reminder


In the past year, we have seen a large increase in the number of FCRA-based class-action lawsuits. A number of widely known companies such as Domino’s, K-Mart, ClosetMaid, Disney, CVS, and Whole Foods have been hit with lawsuits claiming they did not meet their requirements under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The three main areas of FCRA being placed under scrutiny are the employers’ neglect in properly providing the proper FCRA Summary of Rights, utilizing a compliant Disclosure and Authorization forms, and the use (or neglected use) of Pre-Adverse and Adverse Action letters. Here is information at Hire Image website on how to stay in compliance with FCRA requirements, and some highlights of cases where non-compliance is alleged.
• The FCRA summary of rights must be provided to the applicant before performing a background check and also if/when a Pre-Adverse action letter is sent to the applicant. In order to stay in compliance with the FCRA, this summary of rights must be given to applicants at both times.
 Disclosure and Authorization forms must be stand-alone documents. They should not contain extraneous information, and they must be given to applicants at the proper time. Before performing a background check, an employer must disclose in writing to an applicant/employee that he/she will be the subject of a background screening. The employer then must obtain a signed authorization from the applicant/employee permitting the background check. The FCRA allows the disclosure and authorization forms to be combined into one document; however, it must be a stand-alone document and not made a part of the employment application. It is also important not to have a release of liability included in these forms.
• Employers must notify applicants when an adverse employment decision is made based on any part of a background check. The FCRA requires a Pre-Adverse Action letter be provided to the applicant to give them a chance to review their report and dispute any information they believe to be inaccurate. The Pre-Adverse letter should contain a copy of the report along with the ‘FCRA Summary of Rights’. After a final decision has been made not to hire, the employer must send a second Adverse Action letter, sometimes called “Final Adverse Action” or “Second Notice at Hire Image .”
Here are a few recently settled or open cases reflecting the importance of following proper FCRA compliance.

Adrian Singleton, et al. v. Domino’s Pizza LLC : In 2013 Domino’s agreed to pay $2.5 million to settle an FCRA class-action lawsuit that alleged a consent form containing a release of liability, no ‘FCRA Summary of Rights’ given to applicant and no Pre-Adverse or Adverse action letter provided to applicant who was denied employment.
Pitt v. K-Mart Corp: In 2013 K-Mart agreed to pay $3 million to settle an FCRA class-action lawsuit that alleged the company provided an outdated ‘FCRA Summary of Rights’ and no Pre-Adverse or Adverse action letter provided to the applicant.
Reardon v. ClosetMaid Corporation: The case involves alleged extraneous information on the disclosure & authorization form and improper adverse action procedures. In December 2013 the court held that the presence of a waiver on the disclosure & authorization form rendered the document non-compliant under FCRA and ruled it was wilful, making the possible 1,800 class members eligible for payments that may cost the company millions.
Culberson v. The Walt Disney Company: The plaintiff in the case alleges Disney did not provide him with Pre-Adverse or Adverse action notices and his record had been expunged two years prior. The Adverse action process would have allowed him to dispute the information in the report. Please note, it is also important to ensure your background screening vendor verifies criminal records at the source to avoid reporting of expunged records often found in a database search. This case is still pending.
Gezahegne v. Whole Foods Market California, Inc: An applicant who was hired alleged non-compliance with the FCRA. He claims the online form freed those who requested the reports from liability and the form contained extraneous verbiage, including an acknowledgment that the application for employment does not create an employment contract, a statement that the applicant waives the receipt of a copy of any public record and an admission that the applicant has not knowingly withheld any information. The class-action nature of this case, if found to be valid, is certain to cost the company millions of dollars.
Rosales v. CVS Caremark Corporation: Plaintiff alleges CVS failed to have policies and procedures in place to provide Pre-Adverse & Adverse action notices. According to the charges in the case, the hiring manager verbally indicated to applicant that a ‘hit’ was returned and she would not be hired without any other notifications. This case is pending.
FCRA class action lawsuits have the potential to be extremely costly. Plaintiffs can recover up to $1,000 per violation plus attorney fees, punitive damages and actual damages. In class action cases that involve thousands of people, companies may be out of pocket for millions of dollars due to FCRA violations that may be easily avoided. It is important that employers and hiring personnel keep these lawsuits in mind when developing and carrying out hiring procedures. Click here at Hire Image website for more information about staying in compliance with the FCRA.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How to properly perform Employee Background Checks

In order to protect your company, you need to conduct  background screening  when hiring employees . Employee Background Checks ensure that the person you are considering for hire does not have any improprieties on their record, which could come back to haunt your company or the culture you’ve built within it. Employee background checks scour data related to employment history, driving history,  drug screening , academic or professional qualifications, and criminal records, among others. According to recent data, most companies outsource these services. One such employee background  screening company  that is leading the pack is  Hire Image . Since 2005, Hire Image has superior market standing and provides well-informed hiring data to each of its clients. Hire Image works with national and international companies as well as large enterprises and SMBs, ensuring that they continuously hire the right people in their own image. ...
Read more

Clarity on Oral Fluid Drug Testing and the New SAMHSA Guidelines

Image
As part of recently established guidelines by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), oral fluid specimens will now be included in the mandatory requirements for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs. Join   Hire Image  CEO Christine Cunneen and OraSure Technologies Director of Sales, Brian Feeley, and Director of Marketing, Jackie Pirone, for our FREE Webinar to take an in depth look at oral fluid drug testing, learn about the new SAMHSA guidelines, and get answers to other important questions: • What is oral fluid testing and how does it work? • How do drug screening methods differ? How are they the same? • Do any methods detect impairment? • Can you conduct hybrid testing? • What are the new SAMHSA guidelines and how do they affect your industry and testing policies? • Can oral fluid be used in all 50 states? Originally Posted:-  https://www.hireimage.org/oral-fluid-drug-testing-new-samhsa-guidelines/
Read more

Salary History Ban Becomes Law in New York State

Image
Effective January 6, 2020:  Employers in New York are prohibited from inquiring into or relying upon the salary history of an applicant or employee in determining whether to offer a job and in setting that person’s salary.  Employers are also prohibited from retaliating against applicants or employees who refuse to disclose salary history information. This decision follows in the footsteps of New York City, Suffolk County, and Westchester County, all of whom already passed their own salary history bans.  Unlike New York City’s law though, New York State’s law applies not only to job applicants.  Rather, it also applies to current employees who are seeking internal transfers or promotions. Nothing in the law prohibits an applicant or employee from voluntarily and “without prompting” disclosing salary history.  Additionally, if an applicant or current employee chooses to disclose such information to try to negotiate a higher offer, an employer may th...
Read more