ORDER A REPORT
SECURE FILE UPLOAD

Compliance Corder covers articles related to employment decisions due diligence.

Arrest Records and Remote Staff: What Employers Need to Know After Saberin v. Alation

On July 30, 2026, the California Court of Appeal issued its decision in Saberin v. Alation, Inc., addressing an important question for employers navigating today’s remote workforce: Does California’s “no-arrest-record” statute, Labor Code section 432.7, protect employees who work remotely outside of California? The court concluded that, under the circumstances presented, the statute did not apply.

Case Background

Under California Labor Code Section 432.7, employers are generally prohibited from considering arrest records that did not lead to a conviction when making employment decisions like hiring or termination.

In Saberin, the plaintiff was a Utah-based remote engineer for a California-headquartered software firm. While on vacation in Florida, he was arrested but the charges were dismissed. After learning of the arrest, the company terminated his employment. The employee filed suit, arguing the termination violated California’s arrest record protections.

The Court’s Ruling

The Court of Appeal affirmed an arbitration award in favor of the employer, holding that California’s statutory protections did not apply. The court emphasized the longstanding presumption against the extraterritorial application of California labor laws, noting that:

  • The employee lived and performed all work in Utah.
  • The arrest took place in Florida.
  • The termination decision was made by managers located outside of California.

The court reaffirmed that an employer’s corporate headquarters in California is not enough on its own to extend California employment protections to out-of-state remote workers.

Key Takeaways for Employers

Saberin was ultimately a victory for the employer, but the decision may be equally notable for what it leaves open. The Court of Appeal did not reject the possibility that Labor Code section 432.7 could apply to an out-of-state remote employee. Rather, it concluded that the necessary California connections were missing in this case. Employers should therefore focus not only on where their employees work, but also on where critical employment decisions are made.

 

Disclaimer: This communication is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The summary provided in this alert does not, and cannot, cover in detail what employers need to know about the amendments to the Philadelphia Fair Chance Law or how to incorporate its requirements into their hiring process. No recipient should act or refrain from acting based on any information provided here without advice from a qualified attorney licensed in the applicable jurisdiction.

August 4th, 2026|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , , |

San Francisco’s Fair Chance Ordinance Gets an Update

San Francisco employers have long operated under one of the country’s most expansive “ban-the-box” laws. Beginning August 10, 2026, amendments to the City’s Fair Chance Ordinance (FCO) will further expand protections for applicants and employees with criminal histories while increasing potential liability for employer non-compliance.

A Quick Refresher of the FCO

The FCO applies to any employer with five or more employees worldwide if they have personnel working at least eight hours per week in San Francisco (including remote, hybrid, temporary, and contract roles).

Under the baseline ordinance, employers cannot:

  • Inquire about criminal history on job applications or during initial interviews.
  • Run a criminal check or ask criminal history questions until after extending a conditional offer of employment.
  • Consider specific prohibited records at any time (e.g., arrests that did not lead to conviction, juvenile records, infractions, or convictions older than seven years).

What Changes on August 10, 2026?

The Board of Supervisors amended the FCO to protect individuals from out-of-state enforcement of laws targeting conduct that remains legal in California. Employers and consumer reporting agencies are barred from inquiring about, obtaining or considering out-of-state convictions or unresolved arrests for California-lawful conduct related to:

  • Abortion-related healthcare (seeking, receiving, or facilitating services)
  • Spontaneous abortion (conduct related to miscarriages or stillbirths)
  • Gender-affirming care (medical treatment, support, or facility/sports team access aligned with gender identity)
  • Drag performances (public artistic performances involving gender expression)

When an employer considers taking adverse action (such as revoking an offer) based on a permitted record, specific procedural safeguards apply:

  • Evidence Submission: Applicants have 7 days from receiving a pre-adverse action notice to submit evidence of inaccuracies, rehabilitation, or mitigating factors.
  • Mandatory Confirmation: If an applicant submits the information, the employer must confirm receipt in writing within 14 days and reassess the decision in light of the evidence.
  • Mandatory Withdrawal: If the applicant makes a reasonable showing that the proposed action is based solely on a non-directly related conviction or a newly protected category, the employer must withdraw the adverse action.

The San Francisco Office of Labor Standards Enforcement increased both administrative penalties and liquidated damages available in civil litigation for ordinance violations. Technical oversights, such as using outdated pre-adverse action letters or failing to send the 14-day receipt confirmation, now carry heightened financial liability.

 

Disclaimer: This communication is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The summary provided in this alert does not, and cannot, cover in detail what employers need to know about the amendments to the Philadelphia Fair Chance Law or how to incorporate its requirements into their hiring process. No recipient should act or refrain from acting based on any information provided here without advice from a qualified attorney licensed in the applicable jurisdiction.

July 31st, 2026|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , |

Washington’s Fair Chance Act Amendments Are Here: New Employer Notice Obligations

Significant amendments to the state’s Fair Chance Act took effect July 1, 2026, for employers with 15 or more employees (smaller employers must comply by January 1, 2027). The updates place new notice and documentation requirements on the hiring process when criminal history is involved.

Employers must now provide specific documentation to applicants in two scenarios:

  • After a conditional offer: When informing an applicant that the position is subject to a criminal background check.
  • Upon voluntary disclosure: When an applicant voluntarily shares their criminal history.

In both cases, employers must provide the applicant with a written notice describing the Fair Chance Act requirements, along with a copy of the Washington Attorney General’s newly updated Fair Chance Act Guide for Employers and Job Applicants.

Before taking a tangible adverse employment action based on an applicant’s criminal record, employers must provide notice of the potentially disqualifying information and hold the position open for at least two business days to allow the applicant an opportunity to respond. If the employer proceeds with the decision, it must provide a written individualized assessment explaining the legitimate business reason for the action.

While the Attorney General has published the updated Guide, the agency has not yet released model templates for the required written Fair Chance Act notice or the individualized assessment form. Since official state templates are not available, employers must proactively draft their own compliant documents to avoid legal risk.

 

Disclaimer: This communication is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The summary provided in this alert does not, and cannot, cover in detail what employers need to know about the amendments to the Philadelphia Fair Chance Law or how to incorporate its requirements into their hiring process. No recipient should act or refrain from acting based on any information provided here without advice from a qualified attorney licensed in the applicable jurisdiction.

July 14th, 2026|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , |

The Psychology of Trust: How Background Checks Shape Employer Brand

Trust is the foundation of every successful workplace. Employees want to trust their leaders, customers want to buy from companies they believe in, and organizations must trust the people they hire. While background checks are traditionally viewed as a dry compliance requirement, they actually play a powerful psychological role in shaping your employer brand.

Moving Beyond Risk Mitigation

Background checks do far more than find red flags; they communicate an organization’s internal culture and standards. When candidates and current employees see consistent, job-relevant screening practices, it reinforces their confidence in the company’s integrity. By treating screening as a standard of quality rather than a bureaucratic hurdle, you subtly tell your workforce, and the public, that you care deeply about who represents your brand.

The Candidate Experience as a First Impression

The way a background check is conducted has a big psychological impact on an applicant. A rigorous process doesn’t have to be a negative one. When a company prioritizes clear communication, transparency, and respect for privacy, it builds early goodwill.

Candidates are highly perceptive. They trust employers who explain why information is being collected, how it will be used, and what rights they have. A respectful screening experience leaves a lasting positive impression, regardless of the final hiring outcome.

Cultivating Stakeholder Confidence

The psychological benefits of effective screening ripple across the entire business ecosystem:

  • Employees gain peace of mind knowing their peers have been properly vetted.
  • Customers feel more secure knowing they are interacting with trustworthy professionals.
  • Investors and regulators see a company that takes corporate governance and risk management seriously.

In a time where corporate reputation can be damaged in a single headline, proactive trust-building is a valuable business asset.

Trust as a Competitive Advantage

Organizations that successfully balance due diligence with fairness naturally become employers of choice. Ultimately, background checks are not just about verifying the past—they are about building confidence in the future. When conducted thoughtfully, they become a visible expression of an organization’s commitment to integrity, safety, and responsible growth.

 

Disclaimer: This communication is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The summary provided in this alert does not, and cannot, cover in detail what employers need to know about the amendments to the Philadelphia Fair Chance Law or how to incorporate its requirements into their hiring process. No recipient should act or refrain from acting based on any information provided here without advice from a qualified attorney licensed in the applicable jurisdiction.

July 2nd, 2026|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , |

Hidden Liability Gaps in Employment Screening Programs

Many organizations take comfort in knowing their background screening program is “compliant.” Policies are in place, disclosures are issued, and adverse action steps are followed. But in today’s regulatory environment, baseline compliance is not always sufficient to protect against real-world risk. In fact, some of the most significant liabilities arise not from outright noncompliance, but from misinterpretation, inconsistency, and overreliance on outdated assumptions.

The Illusion of Compliance

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), state and local laws, and EEOC guidance are often more nuanced than they appear. Organizations that rely on templated processes or static interpretations can unknowingly expose themselves to risk. Being technically compliant on paper does not always mean practices will withstand regulatory scrutiny, litigation, or evolving interpretations of fairness and equity.

Common Hidden Gaps

  • Misinterpreting the FCRA, state, and local law requirements
    FCRA and state and local law compliance is often reduced to a checklist: disclosure, authorization, applicable notices, pre-adverse action, and adverse action. However, issues frequently arise in the details, such as improperly formatted or combined disclosures, timing of criminal record checks, errors in adverse action workflows, and inconsistent application across candidate populations. Even small deviations can lead to class action exposure, particularly when applied at scale.
  • Overlooking EEOC nuances
    EEOC guidance emphasizes individualized assessment and the avoidance of policies that create disparate impact. Yet many organizations still rely on blanket disqualification criteria, rigid decision matrices, or insufficient documentation of hiring decisions. The risk isn’t just noncompliance–it’s the appearance of systemic bias, which can trigger investigations or claims.
  • Global inconsistencies
    For organizations operating internationally, screening programs often become fragmented. Differing privacy standards (GDPR and local data laws), varying permissible checks by country, and inconsistent vendor practices all contribute to risk. What is acceptable in one jurisdiction may be restricted or prohibited in another, creating exposure across borders.

Where Liability Emerges

The most significant risks tend to arise in areas such as:

  • Process inconsistency across roles, regions, or recruiters
  • Lack of documentation supporting decision-making
  • Vendor misalignment with internal compliance standards
  • Outdated policies that no longer reflect current enforcement priorities

Moving Beyond “Checkbox Compliance”

Defensibility comes from demonstrating that your program is consistent, well documented, and adaptable to evolving standards. A more holistic risk management strategy should include:

  • Regular review and updates of policies to reflect current guidance and case law
  • Audit of screening processes for consistency and documentation integrity
  • Training hiring teams on nuanced decision-making, not just procedures
  • Aligning with screening partners who understand both regulatory requirements and practical risk

 

Disclaimer: This communication is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The summary provided in this alert does not, and cannot, cover in detail what employers need to know about the amendments to the Philadelphia Fair Chance Law or how to incorporate its requirements into their hiring process. No recipient should act or refrain from acting based on any information provided here without advice from a qualified attorney licensed in the applicable jurisdiction.

June 11th, 2026|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , , , |

Background Screening Tradeoff: Turnaround Time vs. Quality

In today’s competitive hiring environment, speed is everything. Organizations are under constant pressure to move candidates through the hiring process quickly, and background screening is often expected to keep pace. But in the race to reduce turnaround time (TAT), an important question is often overlooked: what is the true cost of speed?

The Push for Faster Results

Delays can mean losing top candidates, disrupting business operations, or increasing costs. As a result, organizations frequently prioritize vendors and processes that promise rapid turnaround times–sometimes measured in hours instead of days. While faster screening can improve efficiency and candidate experience, it creates an inherent tension: comprehensive and defensible screening takes time.

Where Quality Can Suffer

Not all background checks are created equal. High-quality screening involves:

  • Obtaining and verifying data directly from primary sources
  • Expertly navigating complex court systems with varying levels of digitization
  • Resolving discrepancies through manual reviews
  • Ensuring compliance with applicable laws and regulations

When speed becomes the primary objective, there’s a risk that:

  • Searches rely too heavily on incomplete or aggregated databases
  • Critical verifications are skipped or downgraded
  • Errors or false positives increase
  • Nuanced findings are not fully investigated
  • Quality control is missing

Finding the Right Balance

The goal isn’t to choose between speed and quality—it’s to strike the right balance based on risk tolerance and role sensitivity. Organizations should consider:

  • Risk-based screening tiers: Higher scrutiny for high-impact roles, streamlined checks for lower-risk positions
  • Transparency in TAT expectations: Understanding what drives timelines rather than defaulting to the fastest option
  • Vendor partnerships: Working with providers who prioritize accuracy and compliance, not just speed
  • Process optimization: Leveraging technology where appropriate, while preserving necessary human oversight

 

Disclaimer: This communication is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The summary provided in this alert does not, and cannot, cover in detail what employers need to know about the amendments to the Philadelphia Fair Chance Law or how to incorporate its requirements into their hiring process. No recipient should act or refrain from acting based on any information provided here without advice from a qualified attorney licensed in the applicable jurisdiction.

June 1st, 2026|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , |

Why Civil Court Searches Are a Smart Hiring Advantage

In today’s complex hiring environment, civil record searches elevate screening from a routine step to a strategic safeguard for your business. In case of disputes or legal challenges related to hiring decisions, including civil court searches as part of the screening process shows that the employer conducted a reasonably thorough background check.

What Can Civil Records Reveal?

  • Workplace Safety
    A civil records search may disclose an applicant’s actual or potential for violence in cases that involve petitions for restraining orders regarding stalking, harassment, or domestic violence; whether the applicant is currently under a restraining order for any of the foregoing, or a complaint for assault, battery, property damage, or vandalism.
  • Workplace Conduct
    Civil records may disclose whether the applicant has engaged in antisocial, inappropriate workplace conduct or behavior contrary to public policy. For example, a civil records search may disclose complaints for workplace sexual harassment or discrimination, and whether such a case is pending, thereby leaving doubt in determining the applicant’s liability. There is also the issue of reputational risk to the employer for an applicant who was found liable in such cases.
  • Criminal-related Conduct
    Civil records may disclose whether an applicant has been sued by a former employer for financial claims such as embezzlement, theft, intentional property damage, or improperly using or disclosing an employer’s trade secrets. Although some of these claims can also be charged as crimes, a local prosecutor may decline to do so, and employers are left with only civil remedies.
  • Other Records
    The most common civil records are lawsuits for breach of contract, personal injury, small claims, or other minor disputes, as well as records of liens, foreclosures, and judgments. Whether any of these records provide relevant information for an employment decision can only be made on a case-by-case basis.

Building a Defensible Hiring Process

The purpose of a civil records check is to create a more complete profile. By identifying potential risks early, employers can:

  • Mitigate Risk: Help protect employees, customers, and organizational reputation.
  • Demonstrate Due Diligence: Show a reasonably thorough screening process if hiring decisions are later challenged.
  • Make Better Decisions: Evaluate findings in context, based on the specific role and responsibilities.

 

 

Disclaimer: This communication is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The summary provided in this alert does not, and cannot, cover in detail what employers need to know about the amendments to the Philadelphia Fair Chance Law or how to incorporate its requirements into their hiring process. No recipient should act or refrain from acting based on any information provided here without advice from a qualified attorney licensed in the applicable jurisdiction.

May 14th, 2026|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , |

In‑House Background Screening: A Closer Look at the Tradeoffs

There is no law or regulation that prohibits employers from conducting their own background screening. In fact, many organizations, especially smaller companies or those hiring infrequently, assume that doing it themselves will be faster, cheaper, or more flexible. But while in‑house screening is legally permitted, it comes with both benefits and meaningful tradeoffs that employers should understand before choosing that path.

The Pros

One advantage of employer‑led screening is control. Employers can decide exactly what to look for, how deep to go, and how the information is weighed in hiring decisions.

Cost is another perceived benefit. By avoiding third‑party screening vendors, employers may reduce direct expenses, at least on the surface. For organizations with limited hiring volume, internal screening can seem economically efficient.

Finally, some employers value the speed and informality of conducting their own research, especially when reviewing publicly available information or calling references directly. When done carefully, this can support timely decision‑making.

The Cons

The biggest downside is increased legal and compliance risk. While laws like the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) primarily apply when third‑party screening companies are used, employers conducting their own checks are still subject to anti‑discrimination laws, state and local fair‑chance rules, privacy considerations, and consistency requirements. Without structured processes, it’s easy for internal screening to become uneven, undocumented, or vulnerable to unconscious bias.

Accuracy is another concern. Public records are often incomplete, outdated, or misleading when viewed without proper context. Employers relying on surface‑level searches may unintentionally base decisions on incorrect or mismatched information, creating both legal exposure and reputational harm.

There’s also the issue of internal capacity and expertise. Effective background screening isn’t just about finding information; it’s about interpreting it. Understanding how to assess relevance, and apply findings consistently requires experience. Many employers underestimate the level of expertise required.

Finally, in‑house screening can blur accountability. When adverse decisions are challenged, employers must be able to show how information was obtained, evaluated, and applied fairly. Without third‑party documentation or standardized workflows, that defense becomes harder.

The Bottom Line

Employers can conduct their own employment background screening, but permission does not equal protection. Whether screening is handled internally or with external support, the process must be lawful, consistent, accurate, and grounded in sound judgment. Cutting corners on screening may save time upfront but it often costs more later.

 

Disclaimer: This communication is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The summary provided in this alert does not, and cannot, cover in detail what employers need to know about the amendments to the Philadelphia Fair Chance Law or how to incorporate its requirements into their hiring process. No recipient should act or refrain from acting based on any information provided here without advice from a qualified attorney licensed in the applicable jurisdiction.

April 21st, 2026|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , |

California AB 2095: Refining the “Fair Chance” Process

California’s hiring landscape is known for its complexity, and Assembly Bill 2095 (AB 2095) looks to add another layer of precision. As a proposed update to the state’s existing Fair Chance Act, this bill aims to tighten the “ban-the-box” rules, ensuring that criminal history is only considered when it is directly relevant to the position. 

What AB 2095 Would Change

While current laws already restrict when employers can ask about criminal history, AB 2095 focuses on the how. The goal is to eliminate indirect pressure on applicants to disclose their past before a formal assessment is made.

Under the bill, covered employers would be prohibited from:

  • Requesting consent for a conviction history background check before providing applicants with a written description of the specific job duties for which a conviction could be disqualifying.
  • Initiating a conviction history check before that job‑duty information is provided.
  • Requiring applicants to pay for any conviction history background check.
  • Requiring applicants, before or after a conditional offer, to disclose convictions or provide documentation related to convictions or rehabilitation.

Compliance Steps

If passed, AB 2095 would require employers to be more deliberate and transparent before any criminal history screening occurs. This includes:

  • Updating offer letters, disclosures, and authorization forms to ensure proper sequencing and content;
  • Confirming that job‑specific risk and duty information is clearly documented and provided to applicants before requesting screening consent; and
  • Coordinating closely with background screening vendors, particularly where vendors host or manage employer forms.

Failure to align hiring practices with AB 2095 requirements could increase exposure to discrimination claims under California’s civil rights laws.

 

Disclaimer: This communication is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The summary provided in this alert does not, and cannot, cover in detail what employers need to know about the amendments to the Philadelphia Fair Chance Law or how to incorporate its requirements into their hiring process. No recipient should act or refrain from acting based on any information provided here without advice from a qualified attorney licensed in the applicable jurisdiction.

April 14th, 2026|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , , , |

Does the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) Apply to Background Checks of Law Firm Partners?

It depends on who you ask. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has long taken the position that the FCRA should be interpreted broadly, and in its guidance, treats “employment purpose” as covering not only traditional employees, but also non‑traditional workers such as independent contractors, freelancers, temporary workers, and volunteers. However, in recent years, a few federal district courts have issued opinions that don’t align with the FTC’s guidance and instead use a strict common-law definition of the employer-employee relationship.

Because there’s no clear answer and the FCRA does not account for modern law firm partnership tiers, a hybrid compliance approach may be the best practice for avoiding FCRA liability.

Background Checks are Consumer Reports When Used for an Employment Purpose

The FCRA regulates information contained in consumer reports in order to protect the consumer’s privacy, promote fairness, and to guarantee the data reported is as accurate as possible. When a background check is used for employment purposes, it is considered a consumer report, and the requirements of the FCRA apply, including disclosure, authorization, and adverse action, as well as applicable state and local laws and regulations.

The FCRA defines the term “employment purposes” as evaluating a consumer for “employment, promotion, reassignment or retention as an employee.” It is important to note that the FTC interprets the ending phrase “as an employee” in the definition of “employment purposes” as modifying only “retention,” and not the words “employment, promotion, reassignment” preceding it.

Equity v. Non-Equity Partners and the FCRA

Equity partners typically share profits and losses, contribute capital, and participate in governance. Non‑equity partners, by contrast, often receive fixed compensation, do not bear profit‑and‑loss risk, and remain subject to the firm’s control. In practice, non‑equity partners frequently resemble senior employees. Distinctions can also be made between candidates for partner who are recruited from outside the firm and associates being evaluated for promotion to partner.

Law firms should consider a hybrid compliance model that establishes separate screening policies for partner candidates recruited from outside the firm, for existing equity partners, and for candidates with an existing employment relationship with the firm, such as associates or non-equity partners. Background checks for associates and non‑equity partners should generally be treated as subject to the FCRA’s employment‑purpose requirements.

For outside partner candidates and equity partners, firms may instead rely on a non‑employment permissible purpose under the FCRA: “the written instructions of the consumer.”

Key Takeaways

  • Titles do not control—structure and control do
  • Default to FCRA employment purpose compliance for non‑equity partners
  • Apply FCRA employment purpose rules to internal promotions
  • Ensure screening vendors and internal teams align on the permissible purpose

 

Disclaimer: This communication is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The summary provided in this alert does not, and cannot, cover in detail what employers need to know about the amendments to the Philadelphia Fair Chance Law or how to incorporate its requirements into their hiring process. No recipient should act or refrain from acting based on any information provided here without advice from a qualified attorney licensed in the applicable jurisdiction.

April 13th, 2026|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , , |
© 2012- SCHERZER INTERNATIONAL | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Go to Top