Advertisement

May 19, 2013

Background Checks: Stepped-Up Enforcement of Fair Credit Reporting Act "FCRA"

By this time, most employers realize that the Fair Credit Reporting Act governs all types of employment-related background checks, not just credit checks.  If and to the extent there was ever any question whether Google searches or searches of various social media sites constitute “background checks” subject to the FCRA, that question has been put to rest with an $800,000 settlement with Spokeo, Inc.  Further, if and to the extent there was ever a question about whether the FTC was serious about enforcing the FCRA, that question, too, has been put to rest with a $2.6 million dollar settlement between the Federal Trade Commission and HireRight Solutions, Inc.

Employers who use a “consumer reporting agency” (CRA) to compile information that “is used or is expected to be used” as a factor in establishing an individual’s eligibility for employment must comply with the FCRA.  Among other things, the employer must obtain written authorization to conduct the background check, and must provide the individual with notice of his or her rights under the FCRA along with information about the CRA.  If the information contained in the “consumer report” summarizing the background check is factored into the employer’s decision to take an adverse action (such as declining to make an employment offer or to grant a promotion), the employer must provide advance notice of its intent to take the adverse action and must provide the individual the opportunity to dispute the accuracy or completeness of any information in the report. 

The FCRA also imposes certain requirements on CRAs.  Specifically, among other things, a CRA must take reasonable steps to ensure that the consumer report information would be used for a permissible purpose and that the information it compiles is accurate.  A CRA must also allow consumers to access their information and dispute inaccuracies, and to conduct timely investigations of disputed items in the files.

In the Spokeo case, according to the FTC, Spokeo violated the FCRA by collecting and compiling personal information from both online and offline data sources, including social networks, to create detailed personal profiles which it then marketed as an employment screening tool.  In doing so, the FTC alleged, Spokeo failed to take reasonable steps to verify that the consumer report information would be used for a permissible purpose and to ensure accuracy of its consumer reports.  As to HireRight, the FTC alleged that it violated the FCRA by failing to take reasonable steps to ensure that the information it compiles is accurate, to give consumers copies of their reports, or to investigate disputes over the accuracy or completeness of the information.

The FTC’s recent stepped-up enforcement of the FCRA, together with the EEOC’s recent focus on challenging the use of arrest and conviction records in making employment decisions, make it clear that these agencies paying close attention to employers that use background checks to help make employment decisions.  Now, more than ever before, employers who use background checks must pay strict attention to the nuances of the FCRA and to EEOC perspectives. 

©1994-2013 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Of Counsel

Martha is Of Counsel in the firm's Boston office, practicing in the Employment, Labor & Benefits Section. She has more than 20 years of experience advising and representing clients on a broad range of employment law issues and in adversarial proceedings. In her role as an advisor to employers, boards of directors, and executives, Martha regularly provides practical advice and counsel on a wide range of employment-related issues, including employee relations and policy matters, violations of noncompetition, nonsolicitation and nondisclosure agreements, employee...

(617) 348-4415

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.