Our podcast series features AGG colleagues and guests discussing business and legal issues and developments related to the Background Screening industry. HR professionals, employers, consumer reporting agencies and other information companies can stay updated on trends affecting the workplace, compliance with the FCRA and other laws that impact background screening and learn background check strategies and best practices to help mitigate risk and protect their business.
In this episode, AGG partner and co-chair of the firm’s Background Screening industry team, Henry R. Chalmers, provides insights on the FCRA’s preemption of state laws and why this is relevant to your business and legal practices.
In this episode, AGG partner and co-chair of the firm’s Data Privacy Practice, Kevin L. Coy, and Data Privacy associate, Erin E. Doyle, discuss the federal Fair Chance to Compete for Jobs Act, provide an overview of state and local ban the box and fair chance hiring legislation passed during the year with a focus on the latest amendments to the New York City Fair Chance Act, and comment on recent regulatory enforcement efforts with respect to ban the box and fair chance hiring laws.
What is a CRA required to do when consumers request copies of their files? And what can prevent a consumer from suing if a CRA’s response does not comply with Section 609 of the FCRA? In this episode, AGG partner and co-chair of the firm’s Background Screening industry team, Henry R. Chalmers, and Litigation associate and team member, Morgan E. M. Harrison, discuss the strictures of Section 609, and how a recent decision from the United States Supreme Court limits a consumer’s ability to sue if a CRA’s response does not comply with the FCRA.
In this episode, AGG partner and co-chair of the Background Screening industry team, Montserrat C. Miller, provides an update to a prior podcast on redaction of identifiers by the courts in Michigan and California now that the California Supreme Court denied review in the All of Us or None—Riverside Chapter v. Hamrick litigation, cementing the move by clerks of court to redact date of birth and other identifiers from public records.
The Michigan Supreme Court has ordered Dates of Birth (DOBs) to be redacted when releasing court records, which will make background checks involving Michigan court records more difficult. While the effective date for this change was recently delayed, once implemented this change has the potential to disrupt background checks for Michiganders looking for work and companies performing background checks. Similarly, in California, a recent state court decision restricts the use of DOBs when searching court records using electronic criminal indexes and redacts DOBs in records provided by courthouses. In this episode, AGG partner and co-chair of the Background Screening industry team, Montserrat Miller, and Kevin Coy, AGG partner and co-chair of the Data Privacy practice, discuss both the Michigan Supreme Court’s Order and the California litigation and their impact on the use of a key identifier, dates of birth, when preparing background check reports.