by Nick Fishman

California Assembly Bill 2918 which seeks to limit state employer’ ability to review credit reports for employment screening purposes has been described as “dangerously close to becoming a critical issue”.

According to the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS), “This bill would prohibit the use of a consumer credit report, with the exception of certain financial institutions, from containing a consumer credit report for employment purposes unless the information is 1) substantially job related, meaning that the information in the consumer credit report relates to the position for which the person who is the subject of the report is being evaluated because the position is a highly compensated or managerial one, or 2) required by law to be disclosed to or obtained by the user of the report.”

The original bill didn’t seem to present a problem until the following points were removed:

• The position is one where there is access customer or employee personal or financial information
• The position involves fiduciary responsibility or handling or managing of money or requires travel

BTW, anyone want to define what “highly compensated” means?  It seems to me that is both vague and open to much interpretation.

Anyway, we recommend that all California employers who are concerned about this proposed legislation contact their state representatives immediately before its too late.

View the full Assembly Bill here . . .

by Nick Fishman

We reported back in May that the State of Rhode Island House of Representatives passed a bill that mandated the destruction of all criminal records that resulted in a deferred sentence, a sentence usually reserved for those who plead guilty or no contest. The bill mandated that the records be quashed and destroyed automatically following the usual five year deferral period.

Well, thanks to an update that we just received from the folks at BRB Publications, we are happy to announce that the bill has been vetoed by the governor.  See BRB’s post here.

This would have been a tremendous set-back to any organization who conducts background checks on potential job candidates in Rhode Island. If the state destroyed these records, employers would have no way of being assured that they can perform thorough due diligence on their candidates.

by Nick Fishman

On June 10, 2008 the state of Connecticut passed a law that requires employers to safeguard not only Social Security Numbers, but Personal Data.  Of course any of the data one would find on a background check would most likely be covered by this law.  This law is intended to protect personal privacy as well as identity theft.

Click here to the full legislative update on employeescreen University

by Natalie Beck

As a member of the Drug and Alcohol Testing Industry Association (DATIA), we receive notification of any important information with regards to substance abuse screening. Effective this past Friday, the Department of Transportation (DOT)has passed an interim final rule which allows both employers and third party administrators (TPA’s) to divulge drug and alcohol testing violations of employees who hold CDL licenses and drive commercial motor vehicles to the applicable state agency if required by state law. This ruling states that employers and TPA’s are not required to obtain the employee’s consent in order to release this information.

To read the ruling in its entirety, click here.

by Nick Fishman

This E-Verify update comes us from our good friends at Greenberg Traurig. Evidently, the federal government is getting ready to mandate the use of E-Verify for all federal contractors.  You might recall that E-Verify (formerly known as the “Basic Pilot Program” is designed to allow employers to confirm employment eligibility and right to work status.  See excerpt from their alert below:

Major changes are on the way for federal contractors, who will soon be required to use
the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) E-Verify system to electronically verify
the employment eligibility of many of their employees. Although Congress is in the
process of evaluating the integrity and future of the E-Verify Program as it considers
reauthorizing the program, the Administration pushed on with its enforcement agenda.

On Friday, June 6, President Bush issued an executive order that will require all federal
contractors to use the E-Verify employment verification system once they enter into a
contract with an Executive Department or Agency. Also, on June 9, DHS Secretary
Chertoff announced that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had completed
review of a rule-making that will amend the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) to
impose the same requirement on all federal contractors. While it is not unusual for
federal contractors to be held to different or higher standards than other U.S.
employers, this is a major development and will have significant effects on federal
contractors. This GT Alert discusses some of the issues raised by the executive order. A
future Alert will discuss the new rule once it is published.

Read the full article here:

GT Alert on E-Verify

by Jason Morris

This story seems very Sci-Fi, but very important to our future! Under this landmark legislation employers are unable to use genetic information to discriminate against employees.  Not that I ever saw the day coming but I guess I have a sense of relief knowing that employment background investigations will not include an analysis of your DNA.

President Bush Signs H.R. 493, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008

Read the release from the White House Here

by Jason Morris

A big win for NAPBS! While the article does not specifically name the background screening industry, the efforts of NAPBS and end users must have had an impact!

State Supreme Court withdraws controversial records rules

By John Greiner

Capitol Bureau

The Oklahoma Supreme Court today rescinded its controversial rules that would limit public access to court information on its Web site and in court files, saying it wanted to give the issue further study and consideration.

The rule change was heavily criticized after the court issued the new rules March 11.

The rules, which would have been effective June 10, prohibited placing personal information such as Social Security numbers and birth dates on the Web site and in documents for public viewing in courthouse around the state.

The court said the rules were an attempt to balance privacy rights of individuals who use Oklahoma’s court system and public access to courts documents.

Criticism and concerns voiced by people about those rules apparently played a role in the court’s decision to rescind them.

In a brief statement, the Supreme Court said:

“The Supreme Court of Oklahoma is very aware of privacy and identity theft concerns of individuals related to personal data that may appear on the Court’s Web site.

We are cognizant that many businesses and individuals rely on the information court clerks have placed on our Web site. Personal privacy balanced with reliable public information is critical for every free society.

“Due to the very important issues for all concerned, the Supreme Court is hereby withdrawing its Privacy and Public Access order… handed down March 11, 2008, to give the issue further study and consideration.”

by Nick Fishman

We posted a legislative update on employeescreen University last week, detailing a ruling by the State of Oklahoma Supreme Court which would remove identifiers such as dates of birth off conviction records. This is being done to protect the privacy of those who have records, however an unintended consequence of this ruling will leave those who conduct background checks in the state of Oklahoma with no way to confirm that the criminal records they have found actually belong to their candidates. This measure would effectively kill the ability of employers (and anyone else who searches public records) to conduct background checks.

Interested in getting involved? The National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS) has developed an advocacy letter for its members to send to the court detailing our concerns. employeescreenIQ as well as hundreds of other Consumer Reporting Agencies have already sent this letter.

NAPBS was kind enough to let me adapt their letter for any employer that was interested in participating as well. I have attached that letter below. All you have to do is insert your name and company name where appropriate, put it in an envelope with a stamp and mail it to the address included on the letter.

Not sure you want to waste the effort? Trust me, I’m the eternal pessimist when it comes to stuff like this. But it actually works. NAPBS alone has positively influenced decisions such as these in states throughout the country. This does work and you can help with very little effort.

State of Oklahoma Advocacy Letter

by Jason Morris

This morning I came across another article regarding new public access rules developed by the Oklahoma Supreme Court.  employeescreenIQ and many members of the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS) are working hard to reverse this decision before June when it takes effect.  Background check results would be severely impacted if this policy stands.

Court’s new record policy would affect background screening business

By M. Scott Carter

Transcript Staff Writer

OKLAHOMA CITY — New public access rules developed by the Oklahoma Supreme Court would make it more difficult for companies that do prehiring background checks, officials with those companies said this week.

by Jason Morris

By JIM PROVANCE
BLADE COLUMBUS BUREAU CHIEF

More