The continued filing of lawsuits against employers under the FCRA underscores the need for in-house counsel, Human Resources, and Talent Acquisition to comply with the statute, especially the “pre-adverse action” notice requirement.
California’s Civil Rights Council has issued draft revisions to FEHA regulations governing an employer’s use and consideration of a job applicant’s criminal history in making employment decisions.
The City Council of Atlanta, Georgia recently passed an ordinance that amends its existing anti-discrimination law to include protection on the basis of “criminal history status” as well as “gender expression.”
A May 2021 court decision in California caused significant background check delays in some California county courts and left background check companies unable to report some criminal record search results at all. A bill to remedy this delay was vetoed.
California state and local governmental bodies—our state legislature, and counties and cities—were active again this year in their efforts to regulate the workplace.
It used to be that employers had the luxury of waiting until January 1 to be vigilant for new employment laws and compliance challenges. For the past several years, we have reported on employment and labor laws taking effect mid-year.
The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) is a federal law that governs employment-related background checks. The FCRA is atypical in that FCRA claims can proceed in either federal or state court.
On April 4, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit joined the Ninth Circuit in holding that a plaintiff lacked Article III standing to prosecute her statutory claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) in federal court.
