July 25, 2014

Fair Credit Reporting Act Background Checks Remain a Hot Topic for Employers

Although the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) is a statute which sounds like it applies to credit reports, by now all employers should know that it covers almost all third-party background checks employers conduct on employees and prospective employees, including reference checks, credit checks, and court record or criminal record checks. The FCRA provides individuals with a number of rights, including, but not limited to, the ability to know what is in their file with a consumer reporting agency, to dispute inaccurate, incomplete or unverifiable information, and to seek damages for violations. Specifically pertaining to employment-related background checks, the FCRA provides that a prospective employee must consent to the background check, be informed if information from the background check is being used against them for employment purposes, and be given the opportunity to contest the information in the report prior to a final employment decision being made. If employers take adverse action based in part on information contained in a third-party background check, then employees are entitled to notice before the adverse action is taken, and another notice after. If the check involves interviews of people (instead of just document review), then another notice requirement is triggered. Importantly, the FCRA normally does not apply if the background check is performed entirely in-house (if the employer does not use any outside entity in gathering or analyzing information or records). 

Lawsuits concerning background checks in general, and claims under the FCRA in particular, have proliferated in recent years and HR and legal professionals have been peppered with updates and warnings on this trend. Even so, not every employer appears to be aware of FCRA requirements. A recent proposed class action lawsuit filed in Virginia federal court alleges that trucking conglomerate Swift Transportation Co. failed to inform more than 10,000 job applicants of their right to access and contest information contained in background checks that Swift conducted in its hiring process. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that Swift failed “to advise the plaintiff prior to the procurement of his consumer report that he could receive a free copy of the consumer report within 60 days, and that he could dispute the accuracy or completeness of any information contained within the consumer report with the consumer reporting agency.” The suite alleges that this failure to disclose the plaintiff’s rights amounts to a lack of proper authorization to view the report altogether. 

The use of background checks for employment purposes have also received greater scrutiny by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), with the EEOC taking the position that use of conviction record information disparately impacts minorities. In a twist on this argument, ten former African-American "American Idol" contestants recently filed a lawsuit against the show alleging that producers illegally researched their arrest records and used those records as a basis to remove them from the show. The suit further alleges that Caucasian contestants were not similarly treated and seeks $25 million for each plaintiff. 

These recent lawsuits follow in the footsteps of a number of other FCRA claims. In February, K-Mart settled a suit by agreeing to pay $3 million over claims that it did not comply with FCRA authorization requirements before obtaining consumer reports. In April, US Xpress agreed to pay $2.75 million to settle claims that it did not provide proper FCRA disclosures prior to obtaining background checks. Finally, in May, Domino’s Pizza obtained preliminary approval for a $2.5 million settlement over claims that it did not comply with FCRA notice and pre-adverse action requirements. 

This spate of recent lawsuits, and multi-million dollar settlements of lawsuits, clearly indicates that employers need to be aware of, and comply with, FCRA notice, authorization and pre- and post-adverse action requirements.


About the Author

Eric H. Rumbaugh Attorney Michael Best Friedrich LLP

Eric Rumbaugh is a partner and represents management in all areas of labor and employment law.  He represents management in employment matters in state and federal courts and in labor arbitration. He also regularly represents management in administrative proceedings, including proceedings involving EEOC, OFCCP, NLRB, state fair employment and civil rights agencies and other matters. He counsels management regarding employment policies and pre-litigation planning.  In addition, Mr. Rumbaugh is co-coordinator of Michael Best’s Trade Secret and Non-Competition Team.  In...


About the Author

Jason A. Kunschke labor and employment law attorney michael best law firm

Jason Kunschke is an attorney in the Milwaukee office and a member of the Labor and Employment Relations Practice Group. Mr. Kunschke advises clients on all facets of compliance with employment and labor relations laws, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Wisconsin Worker’s Compensation Act and has handled cases before the Equal Rights Division, Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, Worker’s Compensation Division, Wisconsin Personnel Commission, Wisconsin Employment Relations Commissions, the National Labor Relations Board, and in state and federal court.


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 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. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  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.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.