Tag: FCRA disclosure requirements

California Federal Court Rules in Favor of Employer in FCRA Disclosure Case February 16, 2023 A U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has granted an employer's motion for summary judgment. In this case, a plaintiff argued that the defendant's background check procedures violated Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) regulations. In granting summary judgment, the court found that the employer committed no triable violations under the FCRA. In this case, the plaintiff had previously applied to work for the defendant. As a result, the defendant ran background checks during the hiring process. The employer provided the plaintiff with a disclosure and authorization form that allowed them to run these checks. According to the employer, it stated, "By signing below, you hereby authorize the Company to procure report(s) on your background as described above from any third-party or consumer reporting agency contacted by the Company." The plaintiff signed the disclosure; however, they later filed a lawsuit against the employer. The lawsuit alleged that the disclosures violated the FCRA's requirements. These allegations included that: The disclosures failed to meet the clear and conspicuous requirement of the FCRA; and The disclosure was not in a standalone document In response, the defendant requested summary judgment, which the district court granted. In this decision, the court first considered whether the disclosure proved "clear and conspicuous." According to the plaintiff, terms such as "third-party agency or consumer reporting agency" and "the Company" proved confusing. Allegedly, the company did not clarify who would compile the report and who would receive the final product. However, because the plaintiff had applied for a position with the defendant, "the Company," could not create confusion. Similarly, the court found that the phrase, "third-party agency or consumer reporting agency," would not lead to "confusion as to the person or entity that will conduct the report." The plaintiff then claimed the phrase, "appointment and/or contract terms," created confusion, which the court also rejected. The court found them acceptably clear in the context of the employment application. The plaintiff's argument included further disputes. For example, they claimed the disclosure proved unclear because the employer provided several disclosures with distinct differences. However, the court rejected this argument. No law currently supports this conclusion, and the notice proved readily available. The plaintiff also argued that the disclosure included extraneous information, violating the standalone requirement of the FCRA. For example, it offered hyperlinks, company trademarks and logos, additional information about the reports describing acquiring and usage methods, and the phrases mentioned above. The court disagreed with these allegations, declaring no item extraneous in this case. As a result of these findings, the court granted summary judgment to the employer. Unfortunately, as the wave of FCRA filings sweeps through the country, many companies continue fighting similar battles to this case. While this defendant prevailed, others have not. For this reason, employers should consider working with a trusted screening provider. The right provider will prove familiar with FCRA requirements and capable of ensuring employers stay compliant. Pre-employ makes background checks easy and reliable. Speak with a compliance expert today. Source

Tag: FCRA disclosure requirements

California Federal Court Rules in Favor of Employer in FCRA Disclosure Case

Logistics Management Provider Targeted With a Class Action Lawsuit Over Inadequate Background Check Disclosures

Our Process

Our Platform

Screenings

For Your Industry

For Your Role

Webinar

Resources Library

Logins

E-Book

Services

Industry

Resources

Our Company