Hire Image LLC

Effective June 25, 2020:  Employers with 15 or more employees in the city of Toledo, Ohio are prohibited from inquiring about or using an applicant’s salary history: to screen job applicants, in deciding whether to offer employment, or in determining salary, benefits, or other compensation during the hiring process. Employers are also prohibited from refusing to hire or otherwise retaliate against an applicant for failing to disclose his or her salary history. Additionally, upon request, employers must make the applicable pay scale available to applicants who have received conditional offers of employment. The law does not apply to applicants for internal transfers or promotions within a company, or to positions for which salary, benefits, or other compensation are governed by a collective bargaining agreement. For more information about the growing trend of salary history bans, please visit our  Hire Image  Resource Library. Originally Posted:-  h...

The Washington Supreme Court recently upheld Seattle’s “first come, first served” rental law requiring Seattle landlords to rent to the first qualified person to apply to a listing. In doing so, the Supreme Court overruled a lower trial court, which had struck it down as unconstitutional last year. The law, which is the first of its kind anywhere in the country, was originally adopted in 2016,  Hire Image  requiring landlords to publicize their criteria for prospective renters and then to accept the first qualified applicant. The concern being that if landlords are allowed to choose, biases may come into play, leading to outright discrimination or, at a minimum, implicit biases. Some Seattle landlords sued in 2017, claiming the law was unconstitutional.  Based on their argument, the law was a regulatory taking of private property and violated their due process and free speech rights. King County Superior Court Judge Suzanne Parisian had sided with the landlords i...

Hire Image  will host a free webinar:  Is Your Drug-Free Workplace Going Up in Smoke? Hire Image ’s CEO, Christine Cunneen and Sarah R. Skubas, Principal at Jackson Lewis P.C will discuss  safe workplace practices in order to protect employees, customers and property. There is also little doubt that a large contributing factor to a safe workplace is a drug-free work policy.  However, when marijuana is now legal (in some form) in over 50% of the states, how do they go about implementing one?  With each new law seems to come a new question for employers. What are my rights as an employer?  Am I allowed to drug test all of my candidates and current employees?  Do I need a new Drug-Free Work Policy?  Should I change my drug testing program?  The questions are endless.  To further complicate matters, recent court rulings, including those involving federal contractors, are interpreting the various laws with varied opinions. Get the ...

Effectively immediately:  An  Act to Protect Employee’s Credit Information  prohibits employers from refusing to hire, dismissing, or otherwise discriminating against an employee or applicant because of information contained in his or her credit report. Additionally, employers are prohibited from verifying or obtaining credit history information of an employee or applicant, unless it relates to the hiring of the following positions:  a managerial position, a position for which a credit report is required by law, a position that requires access to financial or personal information of other persons, a position that requires access to trade secrets, or a position that requires a fiduciary responsibility to the employer. Employers in Puerto Rico should review their hiring procedures and make any necessary revisions based on the new law.  If a credit report is allowed, based on one of the positions listed above, the employer should get written consent from the...

A former Amazon warehouse employee in New Jersey is suing the online retail giant after he tested positive in a random drug test for marijuana.  The marijuana was prescribed to him under the state’s medical marijuana program for an anxiety and panic disorder.  He disclosed this information to his employer after the positive test result and was asked to submit a request for accommodation at  Hire Image . He was then fired shortly thereafter for failing to notify the company that he was a medical marijuana user at the outset.  Despite Amazon’s policy to consider rehire after 120 days, the former employee found he was not eligible for rehire and is now bringing a lawsuit alleging disability discrimination. New Jersey recently amended its medical marijuana law at  Hire Image .  Under the amendment, employers are prohibited from taking any adverse employment action against a current or prospective employee based on that person’s status as a state-registe...

The legislative trend banning salary history questions is clearly not going anywhere. In fact, it is quite the opposite. At times, it seems nearly as if it’s an epidemic spreading throughout the country. Through the passage of various state and local laws, an employer’s ability to inquire about a job applicant’s salary history is diminishing at an increasing rate. The trend itself is not new, the pace; however, is.  Starting over three years ago, with Massachusetts and Philadelphia, salary history bans never impacted as many states as they did in 2019. Today, 14 states (and Puerto Rico) and 8 localities have passed salary history bans for private employers, with an astounding 50% of those passed in 2019 alone.  In addition to bans on private employers, 3 states and 10 localities have passed similar legislation for public employers. Some of the laws passed in 2019 are already in effect, including Alabama, Illinois, Maine, Kansas City (MO), Suffolk County (NY), and Wash...

Effective September 17, 2019, Maine employers are prohibited from asking about a prospective employee’s compensation history until after the employer has extended a job offer that includes compensation terms. The law also prohibits employers from making such inquiries to the candidate’s current or former employer.  However, employers may confirm a candidate’s compensation history if the candidate voluntarily discloses it.  Also, the law does not apply to an employer who “inquires about compensation history pursuant to any federal or state law that specifically requires the disclosure or verification of compensation history for employment purposes.” Between now and the effective date, employers should review their hiring policies and practices, as well as any employment applications used to ensure they are in compliance with the new law.For more information about the growing trend of salary history bans, please visit our  Hire Image  Resource Library. Origina...

North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper recently signed an executive order that bans public employers from asking salary history questions in the hiring process.  The order goes further in directing public employers to also avoid relying on previously obtained salary history information to determine an applicant’s salary.  The North Carolina salary history ban for public employers is effective immediately.  Will private employers be next? For more information about the growing trend of salary history bans, please visit our  Hire Image  Resource Library. Originally Posted:-  https://www.hireimage.org/north-carolina-public-employers-may-no-longer-ask-about-salary-history/

While employers generally get nervous (and with good reason) regarding FCRA class action lawsuits, there is now a decision, and out of California, no less, in their favor.  In Culberson v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, the California Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the employer in a class action lawsuit alleging willful violations of both the standalone and adverse action provisions of the FCRA.  Disney, the employer, had a standalone disclosure form that included a description of the report’s scope, a statement that Disney may share the information with affiliated companies, an explanation of the applicant’s rights, an explanation that a third party would produce the report, and the third party’s contact information.  The court held that the FCRA does not make clear what information may be included and at the time the disclosures were at issue (2011 and 2013), there was no guidance as to what to include or not, as there is today.  As such, ...

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit against Dollar General alleging its use of criminal history in its hiring practices and decisions violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it had a disparate impact on some applicants.  While continuing to deny the allegations, the company agreed to settle with a $6 million payment.  Additionally, Dollar General agreed to hire a criminal history consultant to evaluate their policies and implement any recommendations within six months.  Dollar General also agreed to increased managerial training, so that managers better understand how not to discourage those with criminal histories from applying for employment and to consider hiring those whose conditional employment offers were rescinded based on their criminal history. Not sure what you can or cannot ask and when hiring in your state?  Visit our   Hire Image  Resource Guide to learn more. Origina...

The Professional Background Screening Association (PBSA®) Background Screening Credentialing Council (BSCC) announced today that  Hire Image  LLC has successfully demonstrated continued compliance with the Background Screening Agency Accreditation Program (BSAAP) and is recognized as BSCC-Accredited. Hire Image  CEO, Christine Cunneen noted on the achievement: “I could not be prouder that Hire Image has once again achieved BSCC-Accredited status.  Our team works tirelessly to ensure that we remain in compliance with the program’s requirements, not only for the benefit of our clients, but for our company, overall.  Through accreditation, we are a stronger background screening provider.” Each year, U.S. employers, organizations and governmental agencies request millions of consumer reports to assist with critical business decisions involving background screening.  Background screening reports, which are categorized as consumer reports, are currently ...

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...

Effective immediately:  New Jersey has amended its medical marijuana law, significantly impacting employers throughout the state.  The previous law, in effect since 2010, specifically stated that “nothing” required “an employer to accommodate the medical use of marijuana in any workplace.”  However, a New Jersey appeals court recently disagreed, holding that an employee who was fired after testing positive for marijuana (used medicinally to treat pain caused by cancer) could sue his former employer for disability discrimination for failing to accommodate his medical marijuana use outside of work hours.  Wild v. Carriage Funeral Holdings Now, just a few short months later, the New Jersey legislature seems to be following that precedent by expressly protecting users of lawful medical marijuana off-premises and during non-working hours from discrimination.  Under the new law, employers are prohibited from taking any adverse employment action aga...

Facebook will pay an unprecedented $5 billion penalty and submit to new restrictions and a modified corporate structure in a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).  The charges against Facebook include violating a 2012 FTC order by deceiving users about their ability to control the privacy of their personal information. The penalty is the highest ever imposed on any company for violating consumers’ privacy – nearly 20 times greater than the penalty imposed for the Equifax breach.  In addition to the penalty, Facebook must adhere to new restrictions on its business operations in order to “restructure its approach to privacy from the corporate board-level down.”  The order also creates greater accountability at both the board and the individual levels by creating an independent privacy committee. This decision makes it clear that the FTC is not only not backing down against privacy concerns, but is pursuing them with a new purpose....

Effective January 1, 2020:  New Jersey employers are prohibited from screening job applicants based on their salary history including, but not limited to, prior wages, salaries, or benefits and from requiring that the applicant’s salary history satisfy any minimum or maximum criteria. However, if an applicant “voluntarily, without employer prompting or coercion” provides the employer with salary history information, an employer may consider that information in determining salary, benefits, and other compensation for an applicant, and may verify the applicant’s salary history.  Additionally, applicants may provide salary history information to an employment agency, which can only be shared with potential employers with the express written consent of the applicant. New Jersey’s salary history law does not apply to: applications for internal transfer or promotion; actions taken by an employer pursuant to any federal law or regulation that expressly requires the disclo...

Effective September 29, 2019:  Illinois employers are prohibited from: (1) screening job applicants by requiring that the wage or salary history of an applicant satisfy minimum or maximum criteria, (2) requesting a wage or salary history as a condition of: being considered for employment, being interviewed, continuing to be considered for an offer of employment, an offer of employment or an offer of compensation, (3) requesting that an applicant disclose wage or salary history as a condition of employment, or (4) seeking the wage or salary history, including benefits or other compensation, of a job applicant from any current or former employer. The Illinois law does not apply if the job applicant’s wage or salary history is a matter of public record or the job applicant is a current employee and is applying for a position with the same current employer. An employer or employment agency may still provide information about the wages, benefits, compensation, or ...

Join  Hire Image   CEO Christine Cunneen and the Northeast Human Resource Association (NEHRA) for NEHRA’s Webinar Series:  Don’t Let Your Compliant Background and Drug Screening Policies Go Up in Smoke on August 20 th  (1:00 PM EST).  This webinar will review best practices for staying compliant under federal, state, and local laws, as well as address employer questions and concerns with regard to evolving marijuana laws. Originally Posted:-  https://www.hireimage.org/hire-image-ceo-christine-cunneen-featured-speaker-nehras/

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia joined several other district courts by recently holding that the protections accorded for consumer reports obtained for “employment purposes” under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) do not apply to independent contractors.  As most people are aware, the FCRA mandates that disclosures are clear and conspicuous and in stand-alone documents when the report is obtained for “employment purposes.”  “Employment purposes” is defined in the FCRA as “a report used for the purpose of evaluating a consumer for employment, promotion, reassignment or retention  as an employee .” (emphasis added)  The court found that, in this case, it was undisputed that the plaintiff was applying as an independent contractor and not as an employee.  As such, the court found that the FCRA’s protections did not apply in this instance. While there appears to be a trend for employers under these circumstances, emplo...