Compliance Clips for May 2020


9th Circuit Case Addresses FCRA, Background Screening, and Rules on “Standalone” Disclosure
As class action lawsuits continue to gain momentum, employers should continue to be very aware of compliance surrounding Disclosure and Authorization forms related to background screening. With that said, on April 24, 2020, the 9th Circuit upheld the dismissal of a case arguing that an employer violates the FCRA (a) by providing an FCRA disclosure simultaneously with other employment materials, and (b) by failing to place a FCRA authorization on a standalone document. In this latest decision, the court held that the employer’s disclosure document satisfied the “standalone” requirement because that single-page document included nothing beyond disclosing an intent to obtain a background report, the employer’s logo, and a signature block. Moving forward, please consult with your legal resources to determine compliance of your Disclosure and Authorization forms.

Compliance with Form I-9 and E-Verify Requirements in Light of COVID-19
While we shared this information previously, it bears repeating in light of ongoing COVID-19 efforts. The in-person requirement for the Form I-9 is temporarily suspended if your company is closed or taking other precautions due to COVID-19. The general rule is that an employer must undertake a physical inspection of the document(s) presented by the employee for section 2 purposes. However, the government is suspending the in-person and physical inspection of the document(s) presented by the employee when completing the Form I-9. During this time, an employer can view the document(s) presented by the employee via Zoom or Skype, for example.


Florida Medical Marijuana Users may Soon Become Protected Class
Both chambers of the Florida Legislature are currently considering proposed bills aimed at extending certain protections to Florida employees who are legal medical marijuana users — H.B. 595 and S.B. 962, which are collectively entitled the Medical Marijuana Employee Protection Act. Both bills, if passed, would extend to both private- and public-sector employees (with the exception of safety sensitive positions) and employment applicants in Florida. If passed, one of the new rights these bills would provide to employees is the right to sue an employer if the employer takes an adverse employment action due to an employee’s status as a legal medical marijuana user.

Utah State Legislature Clarifies: Private Employers Not Required to Accommodate Use of Medical Cannabis
The Utah State Legislature enacted Senate Bill 121, which amends and clarifies various provisions of Utah’s medical cannabis laws, including a pronouncement that private employers are not required to accommodate the use of medical cannabis. The key takeaway: private employers in Utah now definitively know that they are under no legal obligation to accommodate employee use of medical cannabis, either at the workplace or away from work. Employers that do not intend to accommodate the use of medical marijuana are advised to clearly communicate their policies so employees are aware that the use of marijuana, medical or otherwise, violates company policy.

New Jersey: Failed Drug Test not Enough to Dismiss Claim of Disability Discrimination
In a recent employee-friendly trend, various courts have found that employers discriminate against certified medical marijuana users when adverse employment actions are taken against them solely because of failed drug tests. This certainly means employers should consider assessing their current policies and procedures.

AS A REMINDER: At A-Check, we’re happy to help implement a drug screening program that meets your evolving needs—or make adjustments to the program you’re already running with us. Just give us a call at 877-345-2021 and ask to speak with someone on your Client Relations team.


Lawsuit against Waterloo’s ‘Ban the Box’ is dismissed
The City of Waterloo, Iowa announced that the lawsuit filed against the Fair Chance Initiative (Ban the Box) has been dismissed. Under the city ordinance, scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2020, employers will no longer be allowed to have a criminal history box on applications, and cannot ask about criminal history during the hiring process. However, employers can still do background checks on applicants.


States and localities that have outlawed pay history questions
State and local governments are increasingly adopting laws and regulations that prohibit employers from requesting salary history information from job applicants. In fact, there currently are 18 state-wide salary bans in place, and another 21 cities/jurisdictions who have salary history ban legislation. As a reminder, we’re reposting a great site that lists them all, including recent additions and upcoming bans:
Colorado: January 1, 2021
St. Louis, Missouri: March, 2020
Cincinnati, Ohio: March, 2020 (estimated)
Toledo, Ohio: June, 2020

Questions? We’re here to help!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s