The Ninth Circuit has held that the FCRA's prohibition on including so-called “extraneous” information with the requisite disclosure extends even to information about the legal rights that job applicants have under state fair credit reporting laws.
While the partial shutdown has kept Congress at an impasse, it should be business as usual at the state and local levels in January. It is a safe bet that many of the 2018 issues that served as midterm election talking points will reemerge.
Employers that use criminal record-screening policies must continue to be vigilant about compliance with all applicable laws and should know that the EEOC’s scrutiny of such policies, while perhaps scaled back, has not ended.
The Third Circuit has joined the chorus of recent circuit court opinions tackling the question of constitutional standing to sue in federal court under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
On September 6, 2018, the 8th Circuit held that an individual plaintiff did not have constitutional standing to sue in federal court under the FCRA for an alleged violation of the statute's authorization and disclosure requirement.
The FDIC recently published its final rule on modifications to the Statement of Policy for Section 19 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, which will ease certain hiring requirements for banking industry employers.
On August 29, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued its opinion in Robertson v. Allied Solutions, LLC, holding the plaintiff had standing to sue in federal court under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
While some may contend that an amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act imposes additional notice duties for employers, that argument does not appear to withstand scrutiny.
Nationwide class action claims against employers under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act are more common now than ever before. The 9th Circuit recently issued an opinion addressing an important procedural issue in FCRA cases: constitutional standing.
