Employment Decisions Archives

California limits social media use by employers and educational institutions

Effective January 1, 2013, California will join Maryland and Illinois in significantly restricting employers’ access to their employees’ and job applicants’ social media accounts. Signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown on September 27, 2012 and fittingly announced via Twitter, AB 1844 provides that an employer cannot require or request an employee or applicant to do any of the following:

disclose a username or password for the purpose of accessing personal social media;
access personal social media in the presence of the employer;
divulge any personal social media, except as provided in subdivision.

The law also prohibits an employer from discharging, disciplining, or otherwise retaliating against an employee or applicant for not complying with a request or demand by the employer that violates these provisions. However, an employer is not prohibited from terminating or taking an adverse action against an employee or applicant if otherwise permitted by law.

The law does preserve an employer’s rights and obligations to request that an employee divulge personal social media information reasonably believed to be relevant to an investigation of allegation(s) of employee misconduct or violation of applicable laws and regulations, provided that the information is used solely for purposes of that investigation or a related proceeding. An employer is also not precluded from requiring or requesting that an employee disclose a username or password for the purpose of accessing an employer-issued electronic device.

A companion law, AB 1349 that establishes similar requirements for postsecondary education institutions in regard to their students also goes into effect on January 1, 2013.

|Educational Series, Employment Decisions, Social Media|

State laws restricting the use of criminal records gain momentum

By now, most employers are familiar with the EEOC’s April 2012 updated enforcement guidance on the use of arrest and conviction records for employment decisions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And related state and local laws are quickly gaining momentum. More than 30 cities and at least 26 states now limit the type of criminal background information that employers can obtain or when they can request it.

Effective July 1, 2012, Indiana will join the roster of the restricting states. Its SB 1033 will, in part, ban certain pre-employment inquiries, limit the types of criminal record information that employers and consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) can obtain from Indiana courts, and restrict criminal history information that CRAs can provide in background reports.

This law also provides that Indiana residents with restricted or sealed criminal records may legally state on an “application for employment or any other document” that they have not been adjudicated, arrested or convicted of the offense specified in these records. Covered employers (the term “employer” is not defined) will be prohibited from asking an “employee, contract employee, or applicant” about such records.

Limiting the scope that can be included in a background report, the law further prohibits courts from disclosing information pertaining to alleged infractions where the individual:

is not prosecuted or if the action is dismissed;
is adjudged not to have committed the infraction;
is adjudged to have committed the infraction and the adjudication is vacated; or
was convicted of the infraction and satisfied any judgment attendant to the infraction conviction more than five years ago.

Criminal history providers, such as CRAs, that obtain criminal history information from the state may only furnish information pertaining to criminal convictions, and are prohibited from including the following in background reports:

an infraction, an arrest or a charge that did not result in a conviction;
a record that has been expunged;
a record indicating a conviction of a Class D felony if the Class D felony conviction has been entered as or converted to a Class A misdemeanor conviction; and
a record that the criminal history provider knows is inaccurate.

Among other significant mandates, criminal history information obtained from the state by CRAs may not include any Indiana criminal record information in an assembled report unless the CRA updates the information to reflect changes to the official record occurring 60 days or more before the date the criminal history report is delivered.

|Employment Decisions|

Vermont is the latest state to restrict credit reports in employment decisions

Effective July 1, 2012, Vermont will be the eighth state to regulate the use of credit-related information for employment purposes. Although similar in many ways to laws already enacted in California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Oregon and Washington, Vermont’s requirements under Act No. 154 exceed those of other state laws as they prohibit even exempt employers from using an applicant or employee’s credit history as the “sole factor” in employment decisions. Additionally, Vermont exempt employers who take adverse action based in part on a credit history must return the report to the individual or destroy it altogether. Neither the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) nor any of the other similar state laws imposes such a requirement.

Generally, the Act prohibits employers from inquiring into an applicant’s or employee’s credit report or credit history, and further bans employers from discriminating against or making employment decisions (e.g. hire, fire, alter the compensation or any other term or employment condition) based on a credit report or credit history. Notably, credit history in this context includes credit information obtained from any third party that reflects or pertains to an applicant’s or employee’s “borrowing or repaying behavior, financial condition or ability to meet financial obligations,” even if that information is not contained in a “credit report.”

The trend in restricting credit report use for employment purposes will continue as several other states and the federal government are considering comparable legislation. Soon to follow most likely will be New Jersey. In May 31, 2012, the Senate approved S455 that would prohibit employers from seeking credit checks on employees or applicants under most circumstances. A parallel bill (A2840) was introduced by the Assembly on May 11, 2012, and a similar bill (A704) in December 2011.

|Employment Decisions, Legislation|

What’s the practical meaning of EEOC’s new criminal records guidance?

On April 25, 2012, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) approved new enforcement guidance regarding the use of arrest and conviction records in employment decisions. The guidance builds on longstanding court decisions and requirements that the EEOC issued over twenty years ago, focusing on employment discrimination based on race and national origin.

In brief, the new guidance’s position is more aggressive, affirming that employers cannot automatically disqualify applicants with criminal records, and that their screening policies need to be consistent and structured for “individual assessment.” The guidance’s main points state that:

An arrest record does not establish that criminal conduct has occurred, and an exclusion based on an arrest, in itself, is not job related and consistent with a business necessity. However, an employer may make an employment decision based on the conduct underlying an arrest if such conduct makes the individual unfit for the particular position.
A conviction record will usually serve as sufficient evidence that a person engaged in a particular conduct. In certain circumstances, however, there may be reasons not to rely on the conviction record alone when making an employment decision.
A violation may occur when an employer treats criminal history information disparately for different applicants or employees, based on their race or national origin (disparate treatment liability). An employer’s neutral policy (e.g., excluding applicants from employment based on certain criminal conduct) also may disproportionately impact protected-class individuals and may violate the law if not job related and consistent with a business necessity (disparate impact liability)

The EEOC specifies two circumstances in which employers will meet the “job related and consistent with a business necessity” defense:

The employer validates the criminal conduct exclusion for the particular position under the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (i.e., if there is data or analysis about criminal conduct as being related to subsequent work performance or conduct;) or
The employer develops a targeted screen considering at a minimum the nature of the crime, the time elapsed, and the particular job. The employer’s policy then provides an opportunity for an individualized assessment for those individuals identified by the screen to determine if the policy, as applied, is job related and consistent with a business necessity.

The guidance further asserts that although Title VII does not require individualized assessment in all circumstances, the use of a screen that does not include such assessment is more likely to violate its provisions. As an example of individualized assessment process, the EEOC recommends providing the applicants an opportunity to explain why they should not be denied a position due to the criminal record. The guidance also specifies the following factors that employers should assess:

Facts or circumstances surrounding the offense or conduct;
Number of charges of which the individual was convicted;
Older age at the time of conviction, or release from prison;
Evidence that the individual performed the same type of work, post-conviction, with the same or different employer, with no known incidents of criminal conduct;
Length and consistency of employment before and after the offense or conduct;
Rehabilitation efforts, e.g., education/training;
Employment or character references and any other information regarding fitness for the particular position; and
Whether the individual is bonded under a federal, state, or local bonding program.

The guidance recognizes that some employers are subject to federal statutory and/or regulatory requirements that prohibit them from hiring individuals with criminal records for certain positions. The EEOC notes that its new guidance does not preempt such federal guidelines, and explains that employers may be subject to a claim under Title VII if they scrutinize individuals to a higher degree than required under applicable federal requirements.

As in its previous version, the EEOC’s new guidance is not meant to be a deterrent to conducting background checks. But it should serve as a reminder that hiring policies and practices must be structured in compliance with the law.

|Employment Decisions|

“Ban the box” legislation gains momentum

Across the country, municipalities and states are enacting legislation called “ban the box” which generally prohibits employers from asking job candidates about their criminal histories on applications. The legislation also makes it unlawful for a covered employer to take any adverse action against an individual on the basis of an arrest or criminal accusation that did not result in a conviction. The states of California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New Mexico have enacted some form of the legislation along with more than 26 cities and counties in Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin and Washington. (A complete list of municipalities that have “banned the box” is posted at
http://www.nelp.org/page/-/SCLP/2010/BantheBoxcurrent.pdf?nocdn=1).

However, except for Hawaii and Massachusetts, the legislation has been limited to public employers, or public employers and vendors and contractors serving public entities. The city of Philadelphia, which is the most recent addition to this growing list, is the first municipality to pass a law that covers private employers with 10 or more employees. Below are some jurisdictional highlights of the enacted legislation:

Hawaii and Massachusetts private and public employers cannot consider felony convictions that are more than 10 years old. And in Massachusetts, employers are not permitted to consider misdemeanor convictions that are more than five years old.
Hawaii and the cities of Chicago, Hartford, and Cincinnati allow an employer to ask about an applicant’s criminal record only after a conditional offer of employment has been extended.
Chicago, San Francisco, and Boston require a public employer denying employment on the basis of a conviction to justify its decision based on EEOC’s guidelines which include the nature and gravity of the crime, the time that has passed since the conviction, and the relativity of the crime to the position.

Proponents of “ban the box” are confident that the legislation will be a significant factor in lowering recidivism rates, as it will allow applicants to demonstrate their skills and qualifications prior to disclosing criminal histories. And many experts say that such laws will expand beyond the borders of the United States in the very near future.

|Employment Decisions, Legislation|

More states are restricting credit reports for employment purposes

Connecticut has joined five other states (Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Oregon, and Washington) that, with some exceptions, prohibit the use of credit reports in employment decisions. Effective October 1, 2011, S.B. 361 will ban many employers from using credit information in determining whether to deny employment to an applicant, terminate an employee, decide compensation, or evaluate other terms and conditions of employment. Financial institutions, as well as employers who are required to obtain credit reports under federal or state law, are excluded from the Act’s provisions

There are certain exceptions to the S.B. 361 prohibitions. Employers may request or use credit reports when such information is related to a “bona fide purpose that is substantially job-related.” The bona fide purpose exception generally applies to positions involving money handling or other sensitive job duties. If an employer requests or uses credit information for a bona fide purpose, it must disclose its intent to do so in writing to the employee or applicant.

As in Connecticut’s S.B. 361, employers in the other states that have passed employment-related credit report restriction laws need to ensure that their hiring, retention, and promotion practices fall within the guidelines of their legislation.

|Employment Decisions, Legislation|

Risk-based approach to employment screening rates high on value chain

In today’s world just about every company knows that an effective employment screening program is invaluable for hiring qualified individuals, reducing turnover, deterring fraud and other criminal actions, and avoiding or mitigating litigation.

Recognizing that a “bad” hire is a threat to the bottom line, many companies, from investment bankers to law firms, are taking a risk-focused approach to background investigations and deciding what is appropriate or how much should be done to ensure organizational success. For example, obtaining a credit report or checking civil records for an entry-level applicant with low risk responsibilities may be of limited use, while reviewing such record histories for someone who will handle money or have access to sensitive information may be imperative in assessing his/her suitability for a position of trust.

Best practices in both the government and in the private sector indicate that a risk designation should be determined for every position, based on its description of duties and responsibilities. The risk grade should be commensurate with the employee’s assigned trust level, financial accountability, access to sensitive and confidential information and critical data systems, autonomy, discretionary authority, and potential opportunity for misconduct.

To be effective and non-discriminatory, employment screening policies need to specify a uniform set of background investigation elements for all position/assignment levels, including new hires, temporary workers, interns, transferred and promoted employees, contractors and volunteers.

SI has a full suite of employment background investigation products. Please visit our website at https://scherzer.co/ to learn more or order an investigation.

|Educational Series, Employment Decisions, Risk Management|

Controversy abounds in employment decisions based on social media searches

In May 2011, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ruled that companies providing social media information to employers – and employers who use the reports – must follow the same Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) regulations that apply to more traditional sources. The FTC also stated that postings on any social media site can be saved by on-line background screening companies for up to seven years.

According to the FTC’s letter dated May 9, 2011 to a company that sells information from social networking sites for employment purposes, such a company is considered a Consumer Reporting Agency (CRA) and thus must take reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of the information obtained from online social networks (as well as other sources) and positively identify it with the subject. It also must comply with other FCRA provisions, such as providing a copy of the report to the subject and maintaining an established protocol if the subject disputes the reported information. As with “traditional” background investigations, employers who use a report prepared by a CRA must certify to the CRA that the report will not be used in violations of federal or state equal employment opportunity laws or regulations. Additionally, both the CRA and the employer have a legal obligation to keep and dispose of the reports securely and properly. (For more information, see the FTC blog, “The Fair Credit Reporting Act & Social Media: What Businesses Should Know.”)

Social media legal experts and various literature point to a multitude of issues and risks faced by both the CRA and the employer who uses social media checks, which include, but are not limited to:

Problems under FCRA section 607(b) in exercising “reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy” of the information.
Since the information on social media sites is self-reported and can be changed at any time, it is often difficult if not impossible to ascertain that the information is accurate, authentic and belongs to the subject. Online identity theft is not uncommon, as are postings under another person’s name for the purpose of “cyber–slamming” (which refers to online defamation, slander, bullying, harassment, etc.)

Information may be discriminatory to job candidates or employees, or in violation of anti-retaliation laws.
Social sites and postings may reveal protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA,) and protected class information under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and other federal laws, such as race, age, creed, nationality, ancestry, medical condition, disability, marital status, gender, sexual preference, labor union affiliations, certain social interests, or political associations. And while the information may have no impact on the employment decision, the fact that the information was accessed may support claims for discrimination, retaliation or harassment.

Accessing the information may be in violation of the federal Stored Communications Act (SCA).
To the extent that an employer requests or requires an employee’s login or password information, searches of social networking sites may implicate the SCA (18 U.S.C. § 2701) and comparable state laws which prohibit access to stored electronic communications without valid authorization. A California court recently ruled that the SCA also may protect an employee’s private information on social networking sites from discovery in civil litigation.

Assessing the information may violate terms of use agreements and privacy rights.
While certain social media sites have stricter privacy controls than others, most if not all limit the use of their content. The terms of use agreements typically state that the information is for “personal use only” and not for “commercial” purposes. Although the definition of “commercial” in connection with employment purposes is interpretive, most legal experts indicate that employment screening fits that scope.

Information may be subjective and irrelevant to the employment decision.
Blogs, photos and similar postings often do not provide an objective depiction of the subject or predict job performance. The California Labor Code, for example, specifically provides that an employer is prevented from making employment-related decisions based on an employee’s legal off-duty conduct. Employers may use such information only if the off-duty conduct is illegal, if it presents a conflict of interest to the business or if it adversely affects the employee’s ability to do his/her job. And the evidence of such activities must be clear.

The popularity of employment-related background checks that include social media searches is growing rapidly. But the unreliable and unverifiable information from these sources is a potential landmine of legal liabilities.

|Employment Decisions|

Maryland resident charged with making false statements on federal job applications

The Department of Justice reported yesterday that Karen M. Lancaster, of Upper Marlboro, MD, has been charged with four counts of making false statements, three counts of submitting false documents and one count of engaging in a concealment scheme in connection with her multiple job applications to U.S. federal government agencies.

According to the indictment, Lancaster was employed in various positions with the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) from 1991 until March 2005. She subsequently was notified by DoD that she was being fired due to performance failures. In October 2006, according to the indictment, Lancaster reached a settlement with DoD whereby she was allowed to resign, retroactive to March 2005.

Between 2006 and 2008, Lancaster applied for jobs at the U.S. Departments of State, Commerce and Defense, as well as with the SEC. The indictment states that as part of the application processes, Lancaster allegedly submitted documents that falsified and concealed information about her criminal history, employment history and suitability for employment with the federal government. Specifically, Lancaster allegedly concealed and falsified informatabout her prior arrests, charges, convictions and prison terms, the unfavorable circumstances under which she had resigned from prior federal employment, the roles and responsibilities she had at previous federal jobs; and her salary history.Lancaster will be arraigned on March 25, 2011, in U.S. District Court in Alexandria. The maximum penalty for each count of making a false statement, submitting a false document and engaging in a concealment scheme is five years in prison. Lancaster also faces a maximum fine of $250,000 per count.

The Department of Justice notes that an indictment is merely an accusation, and a defendant is presumed innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law.

|Employment Decisions, Fraud|

Fraudulent credentials rampant in China

Media sources report that scholars in China say that fraud in education and scientific research, and faking credentials to get work or advance in careers is staggering. With frequent news of falsified resumes by prominent officials and company heads, employers in the country have adopted stricter background checks of job candidates.

According to news reports, Fang Zhouzi, known for exposing plagiarism and academic fraud in China, said that Tang Jun, who was president of Microsoft’s China operations from 2002 to 2004, had falsely claimed in his autobiography that he earned a doctorate degree from the California Institute of Technology, when in fact, the degree was bought from California-based Pacific Western University, known as a “diploma mill.” The scandal was later dubbed the “fake credentials gate” by Chinese media.

Several media publications also brought up the case of Zhang Wuben, who through television shows, DVDs and a best-selling book, convinced millions of people that raw eggplant and immense quantities of mung beans could cure lupus, diabetes, depression and cancer. Zhung’s patient consultations, for which he charged $450 for ten minutes, were booked solid through 2012. But when Chinese journalists dug deeper into Zhung’s background, they learned that contrary to his claims, Zhung was not from a long line of doctors (his father was a weaver) nor did he earn a degree from Beijing Medical University. His only formal education was a correspondence course that he took after losing his job at a textile mill.

The exposure of Zhang’s fake credentials gained media focus and started a new round of scrutiny into the dishonest practices that plague Chinese society, and the Chinese government has vowed to address the problem. To facilitate employers’ checks of their job candidates, the China’s Ministry of Education released a list of approved Chinese-foreign jointly-run schools and a list of overseas colleges. And employers now have a greater awareness of the value of background investigations. Zhu Shibo, manager of recruitment at the China International Intellectech Corporation, one of the country’s leading human resources service providers, told media sources that the company has received unprecedented commissions to investigate job applicants. A typical background investigation includes highest education verification, employment experience confirmation and criminal record searches.

|Asia, Employment Decisions, Fraud|

Previous 8910 Next