California Supremes Offer Compliance Guidance for Background Checks
Confronting two background check laws, the court was not moved to declare one unconstitutionally vague. "It seems to us that such a duality does not make legal compliance particularly difficult, much less impossible," the state Supreme Court said.
August 20, 2018 at 04:49 PM
4 minute read
The California Supreme Court on Monday ruled for a class of current and former bus drivers who claimed their employer performed unauthorized background checks, sharpening the compliance guidelines for companies and resolving tension in lower courts over two state laws that cover some of the same ground.
The state Supreme Court, in the case Connor v. First Student, addressed the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, or ICRAA, and a separate law called the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, or CCRAA. The court rejected arguments that the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act was unconstitutionally vague.
Both laws regulate agencies that gather information about consumers to provide to employers, landlords and others for employment and housing considerations. The ICRAA, which has stricter obligations, governs the use of reports about a consumer's character and general reputation. The CCRAA governs consumer credit issues. Both require agencies to disclose to consumers when the reports are furnished and limit when they may be used.
“In interpreting ICRAA and CCRAA, we agree with the Court of Appeal and find that potential employers can comply with both statutes without undermining the purpose of either,” Associate Justice Ming W. Chin wrote for the court. “If an employer seeks a consumer's credit records exclusively, then the employer need only comply with CCRAA. An employer seeking other information that is obtained by any means must comply with ICRAA.”
➤➤ Get employment law news and commentary straight to your in-box with Labor of Law, a new Law.com briefing. Learn more and sign up here.
The court said that, if information revealed in an “ICRAA background check contains a subject's credit information and the two statutes thus overlap, a regulated party is expected to know and follow the requirements of both statutes, even if that requires greater formality in obtaining a consumer's credit records.”
The court said in its ruling: “It seems to us that such a duality does not make legal compliance particularly difficult, much less impossible.”
The class of bus drivers, led by named plaintiff Eileen Connor, sued school bus transportation provider First Student Inc. and First Transit Inc. over their background checks, which provided the company with reports that included information such as criminal record, sex offender registry searches, driving records and employment histories.
Connor and her fellow drivers claimed in the class action lawsuit that the company did not inform the workers about the investigative reports. The Supreme Court upheld an appeals court ruling that favored the plaintiffs.
A team from Littler Mendelson in San Jose and San Francisco represented First Student. Lawyers for the companies did not immediately respond to request for comment.
The bus drivers were represented by Hunter Pyle Law and a team from Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow. Hunter Pyle, a lawyer for Connor, said in an email Monday: “Unauthorized background checks can be devastating to workers, tenants, and consumers. We are glad that the Court upheld California's background check statutes, and look forward to pursuing justice for our clients who have waited a long time for this ruling.”
Catha Worthman of Feinberg, Jackson said the Supreme Court “reaffirmed the general rule of statutory interpretation that employers and other entities must follow all the laws that govern their conduct, not pick and choose.”
Worthman said a contrary holding would have “wreaked havoc on many other areas of law, such as environmental and civil rights law, where there are often parallel and overlapping remedies available to protect worker and consumer rights.”
The ruling in Connor v. First Student is posted below:
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllInsurers Dodge Sherwin-Williams' Claim for $102M Lead Paint Abatement Payment, State High Court Rules
What Does Ohio Supreme Court's Opioid Decision Mean for Public Nuisance Claims?
6 minute readJudge's Civil Contempt Order for Zoom Recording Violation Must Include 'The Keys to the Cell,' State Appellate Court Says
4 minute readNevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Groundbreaking Contingency Cap Ballot Measure
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: The Recorder and Law.com's California Legal Awards 2025
- 2The Week in Data Dec. 13: A Look at Legal Industry Trends by the Numbers
- 3Antitrust Class Actions Against CVS, Other Pharmacy Benefit Managers Are Piling Up
- 4Judge Grinds NY's Cannabis Licensing Regime to a Halt Again
- 5On the Move and After Hours: Barclay Damon; VLJ; Barnes & Thornburg
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250