The United States Supreme Court has denied a petition seeking review of a Seventh Circuit decision holding that a consumer lacked Article III standing to challenge an alleged violation of the Fair and Accurate Transactions Act where the defendant retailer printed more than the last five digits of his credit card number and the expiration
Employer Seeks Supreme Court Review of Ninth Circuit Finding of Willful FCRA Violation
On January 20, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision of first impression in Syed v. M-I, LLC, a putative class action, when it held that a prospective employer willfully violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by including a liability waiver in its FCRA background check disclosure form.
In the underlying
District Court Dismisses FCRA Class Action for Lack of Standing Based on Insufficient Risk of Imminent Harm
Since the Supreme Court issued its decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, appellate and district courts throughout the country have been grappling with the ruling’s reach. Just this past month, the District Court for the Southern District of New York weighed in on the issue and found that a plaintiff must show more
District Court Rejects Notion That An Improper Background Check Disclosure Automatically Renders A Subsequent Background Authorization Improper
In the world of background check litigation under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), one theory that plaintiffs frequently assert is that if the background check disclosure provided by the employer violates the FCRA, then the authorization based on that disclosure is also necessarily inadequate. Under the FCRA, an employer desiring to obtain a criminal
FTC Submits Annual Budget Request To Congress
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) submitted its Fiscal Year 2018 budget request to Congress, in support of the President’s FY 2018 budget for the federal government. The budget request also includes the FY 2018 Budget Overview Statement, Performance Plan for FY 2017 and FY 2018, and Performance Report for FY 2016, as required under the
Pennsylvania to “Ban the Box” by Executive Order
Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf announced this month that he will “ban the box” for some applicants applying for certain state government positions, and that he will do so by executive order, which would take effect as of July 1, 2017. The executive order would affect hiring in nearly 70,000 state jobs within the executive branch
FTC Issues Guidance for Employment Background Screening
On April 28, the Federal Trade Commission published a blog entitled “Background Checks on Prospective Employees: Keep Required Disclosures Simple.” In this online publication, the FTC issued guidance to employers on how to comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act if they intend to use a consumer report (commonly referred to as a background check)
California Approves New Regulations Regarding Consideration of Criminal History in Employment Decisions
On March 27, the Office of Administrative Law for the State of California announced new regulations that even further limit employers’ ability to consider a job applicant’s criminal history when making hiring decisions.
Except if otherwise permitted by law, employers are prohibited from taking into consideration during the hiring process a number of enumerated offenses,
North Carolina House Votes Overwhelmingly to “Ban the Box”
The North Carolina House of Representatives recently voted 98-14 to “ban the box” for state agency hiring. The bill would not apply to private employers or to state positions that “involve direct interaction with minors or the elderly.”
House Bill 409 would prevent state agencies from inquiring into an employment applicant’s criminal history at
Court Rejects FCRA Background Check Settlement As Providing Insufficient Recovery For Class Members In Light Of Ninth Circuit Ruling
This past week, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California declined to preliminarily approve a class action settlement of a Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) claim because the payment to class members was unreasonably low. In the Court’s view, the class members deserved more in light of the strengths of the plaintiff’s