Disney Lawsuit Highlights FCRA Rules for Hiring Decisions Motivated by Criminal Background Checks

By Michael Klazema on 1/7/2014

Background checks can be a great way for employers to disqualify criminals and potentially dangerous individuals from their applicant pools. They can reduce company risk and liability, protect customers and other employees, and bar dangerous applicants from gaining a position of power that may allow them to commit further crimes. However, while background checks have grown increasingly common in pre-employment screening over the past decade or two, they have also inspired complicated legal and ethical questions that have sparked many a lawsuit. Quite simply, an employer needs to tread carefully when using a background check to remove an applicant from employment consideration.

That much has been proven by a recent lawsuit between the Disney Company and an applicant whom the company considered for a job back in 2011. Disney ultimately disqualified the applicant from consideration due to criminal conviction on his record. So far, the case sounds almost identical to countless other employment decisions that have been made on the basis of past criminal activity. After all, vendors like do most of their business by offering sweeping checks that look into everything from an applicant’s criminal record (at both a state and federal level) to their academic and professional past.

However, the lawsuit gains traction thanks to FCRA (Federal Credit Reporting Agency) guidelines that the plaintiff alleges were ignored by Disney. The FCRA statute cited in the lawsuit states that employers, if they want to reject or disqualify an applicant based on any background check findings, must furnish that applicant with a written notice explaining the decision. The notice must be delivered to the applicant prior to the finalization of the hiring decision, primarily so that the applicant has a chance to peruse a copy of the background check report and dispute any of its findings. In other words, the FCRA statute is designed to prevent inaccurate or out-of-date information from impacting an employer’s hiring decisions or from hurting an applicant’s employment chances.

In this case, the information actually was out of date: the applicant’s crime – an Assault & Battery charge from 1998 – was 13 years old by the time he was being considered for the Disney job and had actually been legally expunged from his record by the state of California. Since the plaintiff, a man named Robert L. Culberson, had been 19 years old when the crime had occurred, the state had seen fit to give him a clean record and a second chance at finding employment.

However, since Disney’s background check turned up the expunged charge – and since the entertainment company did not give him a chance to explain the charge – Culberson believes he was unfairly and unlawfully dismissed from consideration. Furthermore, since Disney did not issue a written notification concerning the reasoning for its decision, opting instead to inform him verbally, Culberson likely has a strong case on his hands.

The moral of the story? Employers should tread carefully when deciding to dismiss applicants based solely on a background check finding. All decisions should be explained and communicated to applicants in writing rather than in verbal terms, and applicants should always be allowed to dispute incorrect background check information. As for applicants: issues like this can be easily avoided if job hunters would simply run a background check on themselves prior to commencing their job search. Background checks can pull up inaccurate information on a regular basis, and the only person who can tell what is correct and what is inaccurate is the applicant.


Tag Cloud
Recent Posts

Latest News

  • March 22 Countrywide, states and local municipalities have committed to ban the box legislation, seeking to equalize opportunities in the job market for those with criminal histories.
  • March 22

    Thinking about becoming a firefighter? Here are some of the background check requirements you might face.

  • 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.