Many employers have begun to routinely utilize third party credit agencies that are geared toward pre-employment screening. This has been made a requirement because of the recent changes that have been imposed by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

What does this mean for employers?

Starting on September 21st, 2018, employers who make use of background checks will be required to inform job applicants and their employees of their rights under the FCRA using the new Summary of Consumer Rights form. If they are unable to avail the appropriate notification, it may expose employers to legal associated risks, for example, class action litigation.

What is the Summary of Consumer Rights?

The Summary of Consumer Rights mandates that the employers must provide a notification before asking for a background check. This would include personal discussion and interviews held by the consumer reporting agency.

What changes have been made?

One of the primary changes includes the ‘National Security Freeze’ disclosure within the FCRA form. This change enables the consumers for its right to obtain security freeze. The nationwide applicable ‘Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act’, passed by Congress in May 2018 requires consumers to be provided with cost free ‘national security freezes’ by consumer reporting agencies. It restricts and keeps the prospective lenders under control from securing consumer’s credit report and makes harder to open an unauthorized account by identity thieves.

Another change includes the ‘Fraud Alert’ disclosure that has extended the minimum time from 90 days to 365 days that the consumer reporting agencies should list in a consumer file the first time a fraud was alerted. This disclosure alerts the lenders that the prospective consumer may have been exposed to identity theft. It results in lenders taking effective and measurable steps to verify the identity of those who seeks for credit than the actual consumer.

Additional Information

According to FCRA, the Bureau needs to draft various model forms for these particular documents. The consumer agencies for reporting and other institutions can utilize the model of Bureaus to be able to form their own substantial forms. The law has also extended the minimum amount of time which must be included by all the agencies involved in consumer reporting on the original fraud alert on the file for the consumers starting with 90 days all the way to 1 Year.

In order to avoid liabilities in the future, the background check companies and employers will be necessitated to update their forms before a new rule is implemented come September 21st.

Photo Credit: Shutterstock/ Africa Studio

The post The New FCRA Form for Pre-Employment Background Checks appeared first on UELG.

Interview questions are usually meant to establish how suitable the person being interviewed is for the available position. These questions also seek to establish whether the applicant has the mentality that will suit the job. However, some questions asked during an interview can be very personal. But in California there is a limit to the breadth of topics and questions that can be discussed during an interview, as some can considered illegal. These illegal interview questions generally violate the rights of the interviewee and usually seek to discriminate people based on different aspects of their life. This can therefore take the interview in a different direction and may not end up properly checking whether the applicant is a suitable applicant.

What interview topics/questions are considered illegal?

In California, there are guidelines for how to conduct a proper interview followed by a set of questions which can be deemed illegal by the law. Questions about the following areas of a potential candidate’s life that are illegal to inquire about include:

1. The sexual orientation of the person being interviewed.
2. Questions that seek to establish the religious beliefs of the applicant.
3. Questions regarding the applicant’s race or country of origin.
4. Asking the age of the applicant.

What do I do when an illegal topic arises?

It is always important to have done proper research before going for an interview to determine the illegal interview topics and questions that may arise. When one is aware of the illegal topics and questions it becomes easier to notice them while being interviewed. It is also the obligation of the employers to know the questions that they cannot ask the people they interview.

If during an interview an illegal topic or question is asked, it is important for the applicant recognize this and to notify the interviewer. According to California law, the interviewee is advised to refuse to answer the question, and report that the topic is illegal to cover. One should do it in a firm but polite manner without showing anger. The interviewee can also proceed to answer the question and then notify the interviewer that it is illegal if they wish to do so. This allows the interview to precede despite the inclusion of the illegal questions.

The California laws also give applicants the opportunity to file claims through contacting the local Equal Employment Opportunity Office. This particular office will look at the claim and take the necessary action against the interviewer to protect the person seeking employment. Therefore, when interviewing in California, it is always paramount to know the illegal interview topics or questions that can violate the civil rights of the person applying for a job.

Photo Credit: Shutterstock/ Dragon Images

The post Dealing with Illegal Interview Questions appeared first on UELG.

Segregation and Other Improper Hiring Criteria

There are various components that employer are legitimately disallowed from considering when they choose whether to employ applicant. Some of these cases are perceived in each state; others are most certainly not.

Separation

Government, state, and even nearby laws restrict managers from settling on work choices in light of secured qualities, for example, race, sex, inability, religion, et cetera. On the off chance that a business chooses not to procure somebody for one of these reasons, the candidate may have a segregation assert.

Record of Loan Repayment

The current monetary atmosphere has left a lot of individuals with not as much as stellar credit records. Perceiving this, a developing number of states have passed laws precluding bosses from asking for or considering credit reports in their activity choices, in any event for specific candidates and positions. On that you weren’t procured in light of the fact that a business disgracefully took a gander at your credit report, you may have a lawful case.

Laborers’ Remuneration Claims

California disallows bosses from declining to enlist applicants since they have petitioned for specialists’ pay with past managers. Despite the fact that there are restricted special cases, you may have a lawful case against a business that turns you down in light of the fact that you have gathered laborers’ comp previously.

Criminal Records

State laws confine whether, and to what degree, managers can think about criminal history in choosing whether to procure a candidate. A few states don’t enable bosses to consider capture records, feelings that have been fixed or erased, or feelings that don’t identify with the position. A few states permit criminal records checks just for specific occupations. A sweeping standard of precluding any applicant with a criminal record may likewise be unfair, in light of the racial difference in captures and feelings in California.

Misrepresentation and Other Claims Based on Employer Statements

If a business makes purposeful distortions to persuade a candidate to take a new job and the worker makes a move in dependence on those announcements, the representative may have an extortion guarantee. These cases frequently come up if the new activity either doesn’t appear – letting the candidate well enough alone for work and in a tight spot – or endures just for a brief timeframe.

Cases Against A Former Employer

In a few conditions, a rejected candidate may have a lawful case against a previous business for keeping the candidate from landing another position.

Striking Back

The laws that fugitive segregation additionally preclude businesses from making a move against representatives or candidates who have practiced their rights under these laws. These cases are quite often brought by representatives who are let go, downgraded, or generally rebuffed for gripping of separation or badgering.

Be that as it may, a candidate who isn’t procured may have a striking back claim against a previous boss, if the candidate lost the activity in view of that previous business’ retaliatory activities. For instance, if the previous business lied regarding why the worker was terminated, or broadly expounded on the representative’s inadequacies notwithstanding a strategy of not giving references, a striking back claim may be practical.

Boycotting

California has laws that deny bosses from taking certain activities to keep previous applicants from landing new positions. Some deny bosses from really making a circling a “boycott”. Others are less exacting and disallow an assortment of activities a previous manager may remove to keep previous representatives from the workforce. To disregard this sort of law, the previous manager regularly needs to put forth dangers or false expressions.

Defamation

In the event that a previous employer deliberately puts forth a false expression that harms you or potentially keeps you from landing a position, you may have a maligning claim. In any case, if the previous business’ announcement is genuine – regardless of how awful – or made in accordance with some basic honesty, your case won’t get too far.

The post Lawful Hiring Process in California appeared first on UELG.