Arnall Golden Gregory LLP is pleased to provide you with the Compliance News Flash, brought to you each Friday. This weekly update is your source for timely background screening and immigration-related news that is important to your organization.
- The ongoing saga of the President’s executive order to implement a travel ban continues. The Trump Administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to lift the injunction on its travel ban. The Administration is seeking to reverse a Fourth Circuit ruling last month by the U.S. Court of Appeals blocking the Administration’s travel ban on nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days. Five of the nine justices will need to vote yes to grant the Administration’s appeal to review the case.
- Demonstrating the value of social media information, the State Department (DOS) submitted an information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget regarding visa applicants and the ability to ask for additional information when vetting their application. This additional information includes social media information to consider terrorism or other national security-related visa ineligibilities. Moving forward, DOS will likely ask certain visa applicants about social media platforms and identifiers, also known as handles, used during the last five years.
- A federal district court judge recently granted class certification in litigation against the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) challenging WMATA’s criminal background check policy. The claim being that WMATA’s criminal background check policy is racially discriminatory in part because it is overly broad, permanently barring applicants with certain convictions from employment without considering length of time since the conviction and whether the offense was related to the position at hand. Employers should be aware that in 2012 guidance on the use of criminal history records in employment, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission made clear that blanket prohibitions on employment based on criminal history are frowned upon due to the potential for discrimination. The case is Little et al. v. Washington Metro Area Transit Authority et al., filed in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia in 2014.
- New Jersey may be the next state to pass legislation (A 3480) restricting employers ability to ask about salary history information during the hiring process, by making it an unlawful employment practice. Legislation passed the state Assembly last month by a vote of 49-19 and is now being considered by the state Senate. Massachusetts, New York City and Philadelphia have passed similar laws.
- Plaintiffs in the Uber FCRA class action lawsuit have dismissed their claims against the background screening vendor. A settlement in the case was reached in April. The lawsuit alleged that Uber and its background screening vendor violated federal and state law by failing to follow the adverse action process. Uber settled for $7.5 million to class members. The case is In re: Uber FCRA Litigation, Case No. 3:14-cv-05200, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
- Here is a short but helpful article regarding insurance coverage that is of interest to background screening companies. As the article states, the issue isn’t necessarily that background screening companies don’t have insurance coverage. Rather, the issue may be that they don’t have the appropriate coverage and/or their coverage doesn’t cover what they think it covers. The key therefore is to speak with your insurance agent to understand what is covered and specifically what is excluded under your policy. Ask whether claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act are excluded. Another helpful tip from the article – if you are an NAPBS accredited company ask if you are eligible for underwriting credits or savings.
If you have any questions or need assistance on any point raised in this Compliance News Flash please contact:
 |
Montserrat C. Miller
|
The information presented provides a general summary and/or recent legal and regulatory developments. It is not intended to be, and should not be relied upon as legal advice.
Manage your Subscription | Forward to a Friend | Unsubscribe