HR Compliance Solutions
The reality is that not all hiring companies are fully aware of the changing laws, regulations, and privacy issues surrounding the use of Criminal Background Screens, Driver Verifications, and Drug Testing when used for employment reasons or contracting.
Not only are Human Resource Managers being deluged with hiring and other HR requirements that they are not always staying abreast of the changing requirements and current litigation when using Background Checks as part of the hiring process, but geographically dispersed locations with hiring managers who have little or no HR experience are finding that navigating the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Guidelines (“EEOC”) is very difficult and errors can result in significant fines.
Some of the more common infractions resulting in hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in fines and penalties include:
- Inaccurate Reading of Individual Consumer Reports and Records resulting in denial of employment
- Use of Risk Assessment Models that are a “one size fits all” model and/or no application of the Green Factors
- Individual Privacy Protection Violations
- Lack of Proper Letters and Notifications as mandated by the FCRA
- Incomplete or Non-Compliant Pre-Adverse and Adverse Communication
- Denial of the EEOC Mandated Individual Assessment
- Improper Dispute Notifications
- Disclosures and Authorizations that do not meet the FCRA requirements
Examples of Cases
Pitt v KMart/Sears Holdings
Defendants violated the FCRA by (1) failing to provide consumers with the most current version of the FCRA Summary of Rights before taking an adverse action against the consumer; and (2) failing to provide consumers with the FCRA Summary of Rights and a copy of the applicable background check sufficiently far in advance of taking adverse action against the consumer.
Singleton v Domino's
The lawsuit alleged that Domino’s pre-employment “Background Investigation and Consent Form” and alleged procurement of consumer reports on the basis of that form, violates the FCRA. The class action also alleges Domino’s took adverse employment actions against certain individuals based on information contained in a consumer report without providing those individuals notice and a copy of such report in advance.
Ellis v Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona
For failure to notify applicants of their rights under the FCRA, specifically that they neglected to tell more than 10,000 job applicants that they can access and contest the background checks used in their hiring process, specifically that that they can see their consumer reports for free and address incorrect or incomplete records.
Pepsi V EEOC
EEOC pursued Pepsi based on reasonable cause to believe that the criminal background check policy formerly used by Pepsi discriminated against African Americans in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which disproportionately excluded black applicants from permanent employment and used arrest records in determining suitability for employment.
Even though your company still has the final determination in all hiring or contracting decisions, there is a solution to protect you and your company from many of the common violations listed above.
PlusOne’s HR Compliance Solutions offers an Administrative Service that takes on all the administrative functions when Background Screenings are used as part of the hiring, promotion, volunteering, or contracting process.
|HR Compliance Solution Offering Includes:|
|Consistent Disclosure and Authorization Process|
|Provision of Summary of Rights Sent to the Application Upon Order|
|Compiance with Provision of State Consumer Report Requirements|
|Clear indication of Consumer Report being obtained and certification of permissible purpose|
|"Green Factor Review"/Risk Matrix Reference|
|Pre-Adverse Process Management|
|Adverse Action Process Management|