Does Breaking the Bank Have a Place in Where Your Candidates Rank?

By Michael Klazema on 3/10/2011

Throughout the nation, many states have either made laws or are considering laws curtailing the use of credit checks in pre-employment screening. Little attention, however, is being paid to bankruptcy checks.

Recently, bankruptcy checks have received more attention thanks to a lawsuit filed first in the U.S. District Court of the Western District of Pennsylvania and then appealed in the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeal. At the heart of this lawsuit is the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Section 525(b) of the Code states:

No private employer may terminate the employment of, or discriminate with respect to employment against, an individual who is or has been a debtor under this title, a debtor or bankrupt under the Bankruptcy Act, or an individual associated with such debtor or bankrupt, solely because such debtor or bankrupt-

  1. is or has been a debtor under this title or a debtor or bankrupt under the Bankruptcy Act;
  2. has been insolvent before the commencement of a case under this title or during the case but before the grant or denial of a discharge; or
  3. has not paid a debt that is dischargeable in a case under this title or that was discharged under the Bankruptcy Act.i

Many people, including one Dean Rea, took this to mean that pre-employment bankruptcy checks were verboten in both the government sector and in the private sector.ii

Rea had filed for bankruptcy in 2002 and had his debts discharged in 2003. In 2009, he applied for a job at an investment firm.ii When told that he had not received the job in part due to the bankruptcy, Rea filed suit, asserting that “the court was required to read §525(b) broadly to effect its remedial purpose, and that under that expansive reading, §525(b) does include such a proscription [prohibiting a private employer from refusing to hire an individual because that individual has claimed bankruptcy.]”

For the Court of the Western District of Pennsylvania and the Third Circuit Court of Appeal, the key in determining the case was in §525(a), which addresses the government and states that the government may not deny employment to any person that has been bankrupt.ii As the same phrasing of “deny employment to” is not found in §525(b) regarding private employers, both courts followed a precedent set by the Supreme Court that states “where Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposefully in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.”

So why the impromptu legal lesson? While obviously unable to afford the same to government, this judgment in essence allows for businesses with operations in the jurisdiction of the Third Circuit Court of Appeal (much of Pennsylvania and all of Delaware and New Jersey) to continue to run bankruptcy checks on prospective employees unless a separate law prohibits it. More importantly, many may take this to mean that such checks are perfectly fine regardless of where you are located – and this isn’t quite true.

Different circuits may disagree over the proper interpretation of the bankruptcy code. The Third Circuit’s ruling may help persuade courts in other circuits, but does not bind them. In fact, the Southern District of New York ruled differently in an earlier case, taking “discrimination with respect to employment” to include discrimination in denial of employment.ii

Further, the bankruptcy code is not the only law to consider. For example, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act prohibits discrimination against any racial group. Suppose that statistics show that members of a racial minority declare bankruptcy more that other groups. If so, then an employer would have to show that excluding anyone who had declared bankruptcy was job-related and consistent with business necessity.

Long story short: be certain what the local laws and rulings are when determining your hiring program. As always, will help you whenever possible in this endeavor, providing information regarding legal restrictions.


i 11 USC Title 11 – Bankruptcy. (2010, February 01) U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Retrieved March 11, 2011 from

ii Rea V. Federated Investors. (2010, December 15) United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Retrieved March 11, 2011 from

Tag Cloud
Recent Posts

Latest News

  • March 20 Employers who use E-Verify must follow the proper steps and procedures when they receive a “tentative non-confirmation notice” from either the Social Security Administration or Department of Homeland Security. Failure to follow the proper procedures can cost employers both time and money. 
  • March 20

    Four Department of Commerce employees are out after their background checks resulted in security clearance denials. All four had worked high-ranking positions for months despite incomplete background checks.

  • March 15 As more states legalize the recreational use of cannabis, they contend with the emergence of new industries surrounding marijuana cultivation and production. 
  • March 14 In most cases, it is easy to determine where an issue might show up on a pre-employment background check. Citations for traffic violations or reckless driving charges will appear on a motor vehicle record check. Verdicts in a civil court case will show on a civil court background check. And criminal convictions—from petty theft to violent felonies—show up on criminal background checks.
  • March 13 How many years back do employment background checks go? This question can have multiple different answers depending on the situation.
  • March 13 A new bill in Florida would require landlords of apartment complexes to present tenants with verifications of employee background checks to give them peace of mind the people working in and around their homes are trustworthy.
  • March 08 Police officers working with the University of Texas at Arlington recently arrested a man who had avoided police capture on a warrant out of Oregon for nearly two decades. The man, whose real name is Daniel Charles Ray Hanson, spent those 17 years using a variety of fake names and identification documents to move around the country, often engaging with educational institutions under false pretenses. Police say Hanson regularly went by at least three different aliases. He sports a rap sheet that stretches back to an arson conviction in 1995. 
  • March 07

    The Future of EEOC Guidance in Texas Is Up in the Air

    The EEOC issued guidance in 2012 warning employers about the dangers of enforcing categorical policies to bar candidates with criminal histories. That guidance is not enforceable in Texas thanks to a recent court ruling.

  • March 05 Vermont is the latest state to restrict employers’ access to and use of social media accounts of employees and applicants. 
  • March 01 In an age of "industry disruptors" turning established business models on their heads, companies such as Uber and Lyft rely on a unique workforce of individuals outside the traditional employer-employee context. Uber calls them "partners" while other businesses refer to them as "independent contractors," the official classification these individuals use for tax purposes. Recently, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) revealed they had warned a business, Postmates, for misclassifying their staff as independent contractors. In the NLRB's determination, these individuals were employees.