February 2018

Message from the Editor:


Welcome to another edition of ‘Inside Background Screening’ our new newsletter. Our goal is to bring to you cutting edge news and information about what is happening in the background screening world to help keep you informed and to position you to make the best possible hiring decisions.

We hope you enjoy ‘Inside Background Screening’ and that you will share your interest and thoughts with us.

Lorenzo

Lorenzo Pugliano

CEO
Lpugliano@nsshire.com

EMPLOYMENT SCREENING
February 2018


California’s Salary History Ban Answers to Frequently Asked
Questions

As of
2018, California employer are prohibited from asking
job applicants about their salary histories, including compensation
and benefits, both personally and through an agent. Applicants
may still “voluntarily and without prompting” disclose their own
salary history information. Employers are permitted to an
applicant’s previous employer to verify prior history after a job offer
has been made. Upon reasonable request, employers now are
required to provide a pay scale for a position being a applied for.

Read
more

GDPR: The Three Big Risks to Your Business

With the General Data Protection Regulation looming just around
the corner in May, information security experts Citrix has examined
the major risks that could impact British firms as they grapple with
compliance. Three major risks were determined, including data
sprawl, information overload and data ownership. The average firm
uses no fewer than 24 systems to store and manage personal
data, with 21% using more than 40 systems. This could lead to the
next major problem: information overload, which simply means
having too much data to deal with. Finally, data ownership is anarea of real uncertainty for firms, many of which are unsure if they
or the customer owns the personal information.

February 2018
LEGAL ISSUES
February 2018


Ohio Appellate Court Dismisses FCRA Class Claim for Lack of
Article III Standing, Citing Spokeo

In early December, a Court of Appeals for the state of Ohio
affirmed dismissal of a putative Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)
class claim against Ohio State University on the basis that the
plaintiffs lacked standing to assert their no-injury, statutory claim in
Ohio state court. Two years after being hired in 2012 and 2014 as
a facility manager and housekeeper, the plaintiffs filed suit against
OSU under the FCRA, alleging that OSU provided a background
check disclosure and authorization to each of them that improperly
included extraneous information and a liability release. In June
2016, the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division, determined that the appellants failed to
allege that they sustained any injury-in-fact.

Read
more


Check Those Pre-Adverse Action Letters – New California Law
Goes into Effect

California Government Code 12952 went into effect in early
January, which will regulate how employers can use criminal
background checks in the hiring process. The law is unique in that
it contains new requirements as to what a potential employer must
include in a pre-adverse action letter to job applicants – beyond
what the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) already
mandates.

Read
more


Military Contractor Hit with FCRA Putative Class Action over
Background Checks

L3 Technologies, Inc., a military contractor, recently was hit with a
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) putative class action in California
federal court, alleging that it violated the “stand-alone” disclosure
requirement in its background reports. Joseph Estes was hired by
L3 and worked as a mechanic for the company in California, but,
during the application process, was asked to fill out a “Background
Investigation Consent” form permitting L3 to obtain a background
report on him. He claims the company violated the FCRA’s
requirement that businesses obtaining a consumer report for
employment purposes must notify the applicant of that request in a
separate document.

February 2018

Read
more

DRUG SCREENING
February 2018

Opioid Testing by Employers is Becoming More Common

The opioid epidemic has resulted in more employers testing for
these painkillers in the workplace. Effective Jan. 1, the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) requires employers regulated
by the department to conduct opioid testing, which applies to
commercial motor vehicle drivers, flight crew and other aviation related
workers,railroad employees,transit workers, certain pipe line employees and marine employees regulated by the U.S. Coast Guard. But employees other than those not regulated by the DOT are questioning whether it is legal to implement drug testing. According to the executive director of the Drug & Alcohol Testing Industry Association, employees can test specifically for opioids as long as they are following state drug testing laws, a medical officer reviews positive results, and drug-free workplaces clarify which substances are prohibited.

Read
more


Can You Still Fire a Pot-Smoking Employee in California?

It is important for both employers and employees to understand
that the new laws permitting recreational marijuana use in
California does not impact employers’ rights to maintain and
enforce drug-free workplace policies and drug testing policies.
Under federal law, marijuana remains a Schedule 1 drug that is
prohibited under the Controlled Substances Act, and the California
Supreme Court held in 2008 that an employer lawfully may enforce
a policy of refusing to hire an applicant who tests positive for
marijuana, even if the employee was using the marijuana for
medical purposes.

Read
more

Employee Use of Marijuana: The Law is Hazy for Employers

The City of Atlanta passed an ordinance in the fall that
decriminalized the possession of less than one ounce of
marijuana. Individuals found with such small amounts will not be
fined and face no jail time. Georgia enacted a law in 2017 that
expanded the qualifying medical conditions for which cannabis oil
may be used legally, which includes the possession of 20 ounces
of oil with up to a five percent THC level with doctor’s approval.
Twenty-eight states and Washington D.C. have enacted similar
laws surrounding various use of marijuana and courts have begun
to address whether an employee’s use of medical marijuana can
be a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with
Disabilities Act and similar state laws.

February 2018

Read
more

EVERIFY & IMMIGRATION STATUS
February 2018

Form I-9 Worksite Enforcement Expected to Ramp Up in 2018

President Donald Trump’s administration has signaled that the
number of Form I-9 employment eligibility verification audits will
significantly escalate in 2018. The Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) plans to increase worksite investigations of
employers by four or five times. Size is not a factor when it comes
to ICE audits of workers’ employment eligibility.


Read more

How to Avoid Common Form I-9 Violations

Fines for knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized
workers can reach as much as $16,000 per violation. These four
important areas will help employers avoid common Form I-9
violations. 1. Form I-9 must be retained for three years after the
date of hire or one year after the date of termination, whichever is
later. 2. Though there is no legal requirement that Forms I-9 be
stored separately from the employment file, it is a good idea to do
so. 3. New hires must be allowed to select documents of their
choice from the lists accompanying Form I-9, however, none of
these documents can be expired. 4. If a mistake or error is found
on a Form I-9, it is important that employers never erase, use
white-out or otherwise render the initial information unreadable.

Read
more

Immigration Agents Raid Dozens of 7-Eleven Stores

In what began with a four-year-old case against a franchisee in
Long Island, New York, agents targeted about 100 7-Eleven stores
nationwide to open employment audits and interview workers.
President Trump’s sharp expansion of immigration enforcement
has already brought a 40 percent increase in deportation arrests.
Illegal hiring rarely is prosecuted, partly because investigations are
time-consuming and convictions are difficult to achieve because
employers can claim they were duped by fraudulent documents or
intermediaries. The 7-Eleven stores served on Wednesday will be
required to produce documents showing they require work
authorization. Audits may lead to criminal charges or
administrative penalties.

Read
more

February 2018
Disclaimer: All information presented is for information purposes only and is not intended to provide professional or legal advice regarding actions to take in any situation. Nationwide Screening Services makes no representations for any products or services that are mentioned and accepts no responsibility for any actions or consequences taken without the guidance of a licensed attorney or professional consultant

We’d like to hear from you! Please email us at info@nsshire.com

January 2018

January 2018
Message from the Editor:

Happy New Year! We hope you have a very happy and prosperous news year.

Welcome to another edition of ‘Inside Background Screening’ our new newsletter. Our goal is to bring to you cutting edge news and information about what is happening in the background screening world to help keep you informed and to position you to make the best possible hiring decisions.

We hope you enjoy ‘Inside Background Screening’ and that you will share your interest and thoughts with us.

Lorenzo

Lorenzo Pugliano

CEO
Lpugliano@nsshire.com

 

EMPLOYMENT SCREENING

Woman Steals Nurse Identity to Work in St. Louis Hospitals’ ICU

A woman in St. Louis has pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in St. Louis to healthcare fraud and identity theft after she lied about her nursing credentials to work at a St. Louis hospital and teach nursing at a New Mexico college. Thirty-six-year-old Samantha Rivera pretended to be a nurse in 2015, when she lied about her resume to get a job teaching nursing at Brown Mackie College in New Mexico. In 2016, she secured a job at a hospital in St. Louis by using the name and license number of a New Mexico nurse with a similar name to apply for a job through a staffing agency. She also falsely claimed to have a bachelor’s degree in nursing and experience working in the field. Rivera faces up to 16 months in federal prison.

Read
more

 

Anatomy (and Costs) of a Bad Hire

A recent CareerBuilder survey has revealed that companies lost an average of $14,900 per bad hire made in 2017. Thirty-five percent of the respondents claimed that the number one reason for making a bad hire was that the candidate didn’t have all the needed skills for the position. Other factors include a candidate lying about qualifications, taking a risk on a “nice” person and pressure to quickly fill a role. Making a bad hire doesn’t just stop with one person, though, either. Studies show that poor performers lower the bar for other workers on their teams. While the impact of a bad hire affects productivity, quality of work and the time to recruit and train a replacement, CareerBuilder said that it’s losing a better candidate that is the worst part of making a bad hire.

Read
more

LEGAL ISSUES


In the Continuing Battle Over Standing, Fair Credit Reporting Act Class Action Plaintiffs Must Show Actual Injury for Failure to Provide Stand Alone Notice

Employers who don’t comply with regulations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), including for violations like failure to provide notice to applicants in a stand-alone format and getting written permission before running the background check, could face expensive and time-consuming class action lawsuits of up to $1,000 per violation. But, after the “concrete injury” Supreme Court decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, federal courts have a heightened sensitivity to standing issues and have a new sense of protection as a result. If no harm can be demonstrated, employers can breathe easy, even if they have made a mistake.

Read
more

States and Cities Line Up to Ban Salary History Questions

While the laws regarding asking job applicants about their salary histories vary between jurisdictions, they generally aim to prevent employers from asking salary-related questions or from screening job candidates based on salary histories until after an offer is formally made. Some laws include the prohibition of contacting an applicant’s former company without the candidate’s written consent and, in California, employers must provide applicants with the pay scale assigned to the relevant position. States, cities, counties and localities that have put into place or have plans to implement such laws include Delaware, Albany County, California, Puerto Rico, San Francisco, Massachusetts, and Philadelphia.

 

Read
more


Waffle House Job Applicants Consolidate Background Check Class Action

A class action lawsuit has been filed by Waffle House job applicants who claim the company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The complaint consolidates claims brought by 23 plaintiffs in two Waffle House class action lawsuits filed earlier this year. Waffle House has been accused of using background checks to make employment decisions without giving job applicants the required notice and opportunity to explain or correct the information in those background checks. The first claim was filed in April and alleges that background screening company Public Data provided cheap services without FCRA compliance. In the second lawsuit, a 20-year employee claims he was denied a new job after he was never given the chance to explain or correct findings of a background check.

Read
more

DRUG SCREENING

State Marijuana Laws: Employers Get by with a Little Help from their Lawyers

The knowledge that the influence of drugs or alcohol can cause significant safety problems, reduce productivity and impact workplace morale has been complicated for many employers with the uptake in revisions to state marijuana laws. The drug is classified under “Schedule 1”, which means that federal law views it as highly addictive, with no medical value. Even so, trial courts in both Connecticut and Rhode Island have recently held that, despite federal law, an employer violates state law when it refuses to hire an employee who fails a marijuana test but is eligible for medical marijuana under state law.

Read
more

DOT Notice Provides Guidance on How the Use of Medical Marijuana Will Affect Drug Testing Results

In an updated “Medical Marijuana Notice,” the Department of Transportation (DOT) stated that the use of medical marijuana, pursuant to state law, does not constitute a legitimate medical reason for a positive drug test. The Notice makes it clear that marijuana remains illegal under federal law and DOT expects that Medical Review Officers (MROs) will treat its use as illegal. In addition, “MROs will not verify a drug test as negative based upon information that a physician recommended that the employee use ‘medical marijuana.’” As such, even when a non-DOT regulated employee tells the MRO that he or she is certified to use medicinal marijuana, the test results still will be certified as positive.

Read
more

DOT Updates Drug Testing Panel to Include Opioids

Effective January 1, 2018, opioids will be included in the drug testing program of the Federal Department of Transportation (DOT). Testing will now include hydrocodone, hydromorphone, oxymorphone and oxycodone and applies not only to specimen testing validity values, but also to initial and confirmatory testing values. Methylendioxyamphetamine has been added as an initial test analyte, while methylenedioxyethylamphetamine has been removed as a confirmatory test analyte. The revisions harmonize DOT testing with the US Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Mandatory Guidelines that were revised earlier this year.

Read
more

EVERIFY & IMMIGRATION STATUS

Employers Prepare Themselves for the I-9 Squeeze

The 30th Annual AILA California Chapter conference revealed trends in travel bans, provided updates on recent policy changes in immigration adjudications and focused on the Trump Administration’s intention to tighten immigration rules and ramp up enforcement at every level of the federal government. But there also was a focus on California’s Immigrant Worker Protection Act (AB 450). The law regulates five broad areas related to I-9 inspection practices and policies, including 1. Access to an employer’s place of business, 2. Access to an organization’s employee records, 3. Notice to employees of I-9 inspections, 4. Notice to employees of I-9 audit results and 5. Reverification of current employees.


Read more

New I-9 FAQs on Transgender Employees, E-Verify Time Zone Issues, Closing Cases, and More!

Five recent Form I-9 and E-Verify updates will lead to changes in compliance procedures and processes for the upcoming year. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has confirmed updates and changes regarding “Form I-9 and Transgender Employees,” space issues for “Additional Other Last Names Used,” “E-Verify Time Zone Guidance,” “E-Verify TNC Guidance,” and “E-Verify Automation Guidance.”

Read
more

January 2018 Message from the Editor:

Happy New Year! We hope you have a very happy and prosperous news year.

Welcome to another edition of ‘Inside Background Screening’ our new newsletter. Our goal is to bring to you cutting edge news and information about what is happening in the background screening world to help keep you informed and to position you to make the best possible hiring decisions.

We hope you enjoy ‘Inside Background Screening’ and that you will share your interest and thoughts with us.

Lorenzo

Lorenzo Pugliano

CEO
Lpugliano@nsshire.com

EMPLOYMENT SCREENING LEGAL ISSUES DRUG SCREENING EVERIFY & IMMIGRATION STATUS
January 2018
Message from the Editor:

Happy New Year! We hope you have a very happy and prosperous news year.

Welcome to another edition of ‘Inside Background Screening’ our new newsletter. Our goal is to bring to you cutting edge news and information about what is happening in the background screening world to help keep you informed and to position you to make the best possible hiring decisions.

We hope you enjoy ‘Inside Background Screening’ and that you will share your interest and thoughts with us.

Lorenzo

Lorenzo Pugliano

CEO
Lpugliano@nsshire.com

EMPLOYMENT SCREENING
LEGAL ISSUES
DRUG SCREENING
EVERIFY & IMMIGRATION STATUS
Disclaimer: All information presented is for information purposes only and is not intended to provide professional or legal advice regarding actions to take in any situation. Nationwide Screening Services makes no representations for any products or services that are mentioned and accepts no responsibility for any actions or consequences taken without the guidance of a licensed attorney or professional consultant

We’d like to hear from you! Please email us at info@nsshire.com

DECEMBER 2017

Message from the Editor:

Welcome to ‘Inside Background Screening’ our new newsletter. Our goal is to bring to you cutting edge news and information about what is happening in the background screening world to help keep you informed and to position you to make the best possible hiring decisions.

We hope you enjoy ‘Inside Background Screening’ and that you will share you interest and thoughts with us.

Lorenzo

Lorenzo Pugliano

CEO
Lpugliano@nsshire.com

LEGAL ISSUES
DECEMBER 2017

Employers Should Share All Background Check Reports Before Revoking Job Offers

It was ruled by a federal judge that an employer did not comply with requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) when it failed to send a rejected candidate a final background check report and required notices. Lemuel Wright argued that Lincoln Property Company violated the FCRA when it failed to provide him with time to contest a criminal background check and drug screening report before an adverse decision was taken. In addition, the plaintiff claimed he was not provided with a copy of the pertinent consumer report. The company decided to revoke the offer of employment based on his felony convictions that were included in both the preliminary and final reports, but the court denied their motion for summary judgment and concluded that a jury should resolve the dispute.

Read
more

High Alert for California Employers and Employers Nationwide for the Second Wave of FCRA Class Actions

Employers in the state of California are being urged to stay alert and remain vigilant when it comes to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), as the plaintiff’s bar continues to pursue actions against employers that operate in plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions. The FCRA imposes requirements on employers who use “consumer reports” or “investigative consumer reports” for “employment purposes.” The requirements could be broken down into two categories – those guidelines employers must follow before obtaining a consumer report and those that must be followed if they intend to take “adverse action.” The increase in California FCRA suits could be blamed on several factors: statutory damages, concurrent jurisdiction in state courts, California’s FCRA, and plaintiff-friendly rulings in the Ninth Circuit.

Read
more


Federal Judge Rules State Sex Offender Registry is Unconstitutional

A judge in Colorado has ruled that listing offenders’ personal information, such as names and addresses, gives the public the power to punish beyond what the court has deemed appropriate. He also ruled that the Colorado Sex Offender Registration Act violates the 14th Amendment process of rights. The judge has argued than an individual assessment should be considered for each case. The Attorney General’s Office could appeal the ruling to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Read
more


Pepsi Class Action Claims Company Violated Federal Law

Altareek Grice has alleged in a class action lawsuit against Pepsi that the company obtained a consumer report from him without his knowledge or permission when he applied for a job at a bottling plant. He claims Pepsi failed to meet Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) regulations when it didn’t use proper disclosures during the background check. Violations of the FCRA could lead to up $1,000 in fines. Grice represents a nationwide class of individuals that applied for positions with Pepsi and is limited to those who sought employment within the past two years. This could include more than 1,000 members.

Read
more

DRUG SCREENING
DECEMBER 2017

Opioid Crisis in U.S. Spills into Workplace

It’s no secret that drug abuse in the workforce is a growing challenge for American businesses. A Baltimore food-processing plant practices a zero-tolerance policy in which one randomly chosen employee gets tested each month. It is costly to hire a third-party company and pay the clinic to conduct the test, but the business is certainly not a good place to be intoxicated. According to the National Safety Council, 57 percent of employers say they drug test employees. And with opioids killing about 33,000 Americans in 2015, federal government employees who use drug tests will be required to submit to a more extensive screening. The opioid crisis has caused hiring difficulties, a slowing economy for the country, and dangerous alternatives to painkillers.

Read
more

Niffsinger v. SCC Niantic Operating Co.: What Does the Connecticut Ruling Mean for Employers

With more than half of the country passing laws that permit the use of marijuana, businesses are advised to become familiar with new laws. The drug remains on Schedule 1 under the Federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), in the same category with heroin. Regardless of state regulations, possession of marijuana remains a federal crime. A recent federal trial in Connecticut ended with the decision that an employer can be sued by a prospective employee after withdrawing a conditional offer of employment due to a positive drug screening for marijuana. Noffsinger v. SSC Niantic Operating Co. was a case of first impression in which the court held that the federal law does not preempt the Connecticut Palliative Use of Marijuana Act (PUMA).

Read
more

EVERIFY & IMMIGRATION STATUS
DECEMBER 2017

ICE Announces Up to Five-Fold Increase in Form I-9 Worksite Inspections

In an effort to continue to promote homeland security and public safety, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Thomas Homan announced a significant increase in worksite related investigations. Worksite enforcement is an important component of ICE’s overall strategy. There are a number of proven strategies that employers can initiate immediately to address the risks of an ICE worksite audit. Compliance awareness with an emphasis on the importance of the I-9 form is a great first start. Conducting a self-audit is the best way to uncover I-9 errors and omissions, and the creation of an internal handbook that specifically documents how I-9 forms will be completed and reviewed for accuracy demonstrates good faith and serves as a great training document. Finally, the use of an electronic I-9 system helps ensure compliance moving forward.


Read more

ICE Levies Largest Settlement Ever: Asplundh Tree Expert Co to Pay $95 Million Dollars

Asplundh Tree Expert Co. has been ordered to pay $95 million in the largest fine against a company for hiring thousands of immigrants who did not have permission to work in the United States. The 90-year-old company with 30,000 employees employed thousands of undocumented workers between 2010 and 2014. The company must forfeit $80 million in addition to paying a $15 million civil penalty for not complying with immigration law. In 2009, Asplundh fired hundreds of employees who were ineligible to work in the United States, later rehiring them under different names or false documents.


Read more

Rep. Lamar Smith Introduced Mandatory E-Verify Bill

Rep. Lamar Smith reintroduced the Legal Workforce Act, H.R. 3711, a bill that would require all employers to use E-Verify within two years. Smith believes that by expanding the E-Verify system, jobs will only go to legal workers. The Legal Workforce Act repeals the current paper-based I-9 system and phases in mandatory E-Verify participation for new hires in six-month increments. It also requires that employees performing “agricultural labor of services” are only subject to the check within 30 months of the date of enactment. The bill preempts duplicative state laws mandating E-Verify use but retains the ability of states and localities to condition business licenses. It also protects against identity theft by allowing individuals to lock their social security number.

Read more

DECEMBER 2017
Disclaimer: All information presented is for information purposes only and is not intended to provide professional or legal advice regarding actions to take in any situation. Nationwide Screening Solutions. makes no representations for any products or services that are mentioned and accepts no responsibility for any actions or consequences taken without the guidance of a licensed attorney or professional consultant

We’d like to hear from you! Please email us at info@nsswide.com