Hiring and Background Checks

Subscribe to Hiring and Background Checks via RSS

As more counties move toward the Orange Tier on the state reopening guidance, businesses can reopen or operate under less restrictive requirements. This may mean employers need more employees than in the last several months. Though last year, the Governor vetoed a statewide right of recall requirement, several cities still have ordinances in…

Beginning January 1, 2020, agreements to settle employment disputes may no longer contain “no rehire” provisions, as California passes additional legislation spurred on by the #MeToo movement.  California joins Vermont and Oregon as the first states to prohibit “no rehire” provisions in employment settlement agreements.

“No rehire” provisions typically state that a former employee will…

The Ninth Circuit’s recent ruling in Dutta v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company highlights the importance of evaluating and potentially challenging a plaintiff’s standing in a Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) action.

Dutta alleged that, in violation of § 1681b of the FCRA, State Farm failed to provide him with notice of his FCRA…

The Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) finalized new regulations limiting the ability of employers to consider criminal history when making employment decisions.  The regulations become effective on July 1, 2017.  Employers should reexamine their policies and practices of using criminal histories in employment decisions before the regulations take effect.  The new regulations are…

Effective July 1, 2017, new regulations will further limit employers’ ability to consider criminal history when making employment decisions.

On March 27, 2017, the Office of Administrative Law approved the Fair Employment Housing Counsel’s new regulations clarifying existing limitations on criminal background checks and, in large part, conforming to the Equal Employment Commission’s position that…

The Los Angeles Fair Chance Initiative for Hiring Ordinance “FCIHO” went into effect on January 22, 2017. The Bureau of Contract Administration, the Designated Administrative Agency responsible for enforcing the Ordinance, has issued “Rules and Regulations” for the FCIHO. Click here for highlights and more information on the regulations.

On September 27, 2016, Governor Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill 1843, which prohibits certain inquiries into the criminal past of applicants for employment.  The new law now adds a prohibition against asking about, considering as part of the hiring process, or attempting to discover, information relating to any “arrest, detention, processing, diversion, supervision, adjudication, or …

With holiday hiring in full swing, it’s a good time to review what should and should not be asked on employment applications.

What Not to Ask

Any questions designed to elicit information about an employee’s protected characteristics or status should be avoided. Exceptions exist for bona fide occupational qualifications.  A BFOQ is a work requirement…

The California Supreme Court will decide if the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA) is unconstitutionally vague. In Connor v. First Student Inc., the Court of Appeal rejected an employer’s argument that the ICRAA was unconstitutional because the employer could not ascertain whether it was required to comply with it or the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act. The former governs background checks obtained from third party agencies concerning information pertaining to a consumer’s character, personal characteristics, general reputation or mode of living.  The second applies to reports containing information regarding a consumer’s credit worthiness, credit capacity or credit standing. Both Acts, however, refer to identical categories of information (for example, criminal histories, civil judgments and bankruptcies) when imposing limits on information that can be disclosed. 
Continue Reading California Supreme Court to Decide if California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act is “Unconstitutionally Vague”