Employers Face Class Action Lawsuits for Online Applications in Violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act

In a response to a lack of communication during the online application process, the National Law Forum reports that an increasing number of job seekers are suing employers who are in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

In a recent class action lawsuit against K-Mart, prosecutors say that the online applications that they filled out for positions at K-Mart are in violation of the FCRA. The retailer allegedly utilizes buttons on their online applications that either say “decline” or “accept.” These buttons are the only means offered by K-Mart to obtain an applicant’s consent to submit to a background. Apparently, this simple button click is not the correct way to obtain a background check authorization from an applicant.

According to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, in order to provide full disclosure to a job applicant:

a clear and conspicuous disclosure has been made in writing to the consumer at any time before the report is procured or caused to be procured, in a document that consists solely of the disclosure, that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes; and the consumer has authorized in writing (which authorization may be made on the document referred to in clause (i)) the procurement of the report by that person.

The simplicity of a “decline” or “accept” button does not constitute a written authorization, prosecutors say. Employers who utilize online job applications argue that under the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-Sign), electronically authorizing background checks are permitted. However, E-sign only applies to consumers or customers, not job applicants.

 

HR Professional Opinion:

(The comments below are part of First Contact HR’s opinion column where we offer the writer’s opinion on this post’s specific topic and thus should not be taken as legal advice.)

While it is certainly okay to obtain a background check authorization from an online job application, it is important to keep in mind that the authorization must:

  1. Provide a clear and conspicuous disclosure in writing to the applicant that a consumer report for employment purposes will be procured;
  2. The consumer has authorized in writing (such as e-mail, mouse click “yes” )the procurement of the report, and;
  3. The electronic authorization must be “capable of being retained and accurately reproduced for later reference for the benefit of the consumer. Learn more

Regarding the K-Mart matter, it appears the company failed to satisfy the FCRA requirement stated above by requesting applicants merely to click a mouse button labeled “accept” or “decline.”

Although an electronic signature may prove to be a legally valid authorization to conduct a background check (under the FCRA), job applicants may be reluctant to accept the electronically-signed authorization and may require an actual hardcopy signature. To be safe, it might be prudent to stick with hardcopy signatures that are stored electronically with respect to background check authorizations.

 

Twitter del.icio.us Digg Facebook linked-in Yahoo Buzz StumbleUpon

Pepsi Beverages pays $3.1M to Settle Discrimination Charges

PepsiCo Inc.’s bottling unit, Pepsi Beverages, has agreed to settle federal racial-discrimination charges as well as pledged to provide job training and new roles, according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

PepsiCo Inc. provided a statement that said the EEOC did not find any intentional discrimination. However, the company’s former criminal background check policy disproportionately barred approximately 300 black job applicants from employment. The EEOC, which enforces employment discrimination laws, said in a release that based on an investigation, “found reasonable cause to believe” that PepsiCo Inc.’s former criminal background check policy discriminated against black people.

The former policy and practice exercised by the company used the checks to screen out job applicants who had arrest records – even if they were never convicted of a crime. The policy resulted in limiting job opportunities for minorities, who statistically have higher arrest rates than whites.

The monetary settlement is being allocated in part to the claims process but primarily to division amongst black applicants for new positions at Pepsi. The company has also agreed to submit regular reports to the EEOC on its hiring process and offer anti-discrimination training to hiring managers.

Read EEOC press release: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/1-11-12a.cfm

 

HR Professional Opinion:

(The comments below are part of First Contact HR’s opinion column where we offer the writer’s opinion on this post’s specific topic and thus should not be taken as legal advice.)

While it is unfortunate, PepsiCo Inc. was faced with claims of discrimination; it is commendable that the company has recognized its discriminatory policy and is taking steps towards creating a more diverse work environment. In the case of hiring, the EEOC clearly states: “There is no Federal law that clearly prohibits an employer from asking about arrest and conviction records. However, using such records as an absolute measure to prevent an individual from being hired could limit the employment opportunities of some protected groups and thus cannot be used in this way.”

Pepsi overlooked this guideline, which could have been avoided had their HR department worked with a background screening company that could make sure their screening policies were aligned with the EEOC guidelines. Pepsi’s former policy not only limited employment opportunities for minorities by considering arrest records as a component of background screening, it also failed to take into consideration the applicant’s arrest as it related to the specific job.

First Contact HR advises its clients to only consider criminal conviction records that are job related before taking any adverse action against job candidates. Further, First Contact HR recommends employers always exercise good judgment and proposes the following ten (10) criteria for employers to consider when criminal record hits are discovered in background screening reports:

  1. The nature, extent and seriousness of the conduct /conviction;
  2. The circumstances surrounding the conduct;
  3. The frequency of the conduct;
  4. How recently the conduct occurred;
  5. The individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct;
  6. The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other pertinent behavior changes;
  7. The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress;
  8. The likelihood of continuation of the conduct;
  9. How, and if, the conduct bears upon potential job responsibilities; and
  10. The individual’s employment history before and after the conduct.

 

Twitter del.icio.us Digg Facebook linked-in Yahoo Buzz StumbleUpon