Maryland Won’t Require Fingerprint Checks for Uber and Lyft

By Michael Klazema on 12/29/2016
Regulators in the state of Maryland recently decided against a mandate that would have required fingerprint background checks for popular ridesharing companies Uber and Lyft. According to a report about the decision from The Baltimore Sun, Uber and Lyft will instead have to comply with “additional reporting and safety provisions.”

Uber was threatening to leave the state of Maryland entirely if the government decided to require fingerprint background checks. In 2015, the Maryland General Assembly agreed that it wanted fingerprint checks for all ridesharing drivers, to match compliance rules for taxi drivers. The requirement would have made it illegal for drivers to accept fares through the Uber and Lyft apps without first submitting to (and paying for) the fingerprint checks.[G1] [G2]

Technically, that General Assembly decision is still in place, and ridesharing drivers in Maryland do need fingerprint checks on file. However, both Uber and Lyft petitioned the Maryland Public Service Commission for waivers that would allow them to be exempted from the rule. According to a recent [G3] [G4] Washington Post article, the Public Service Commission went through multiple days of hearings in the month of November, trying to decide whether or not to sign off on the waivers.[G5]

Ultimately, the commission decided that both Uber and Lyft have sufficient, extensive background check policies in place to keep passengers safe. Regulators noted that, since both fingerprinting and commercial background checks can have holes or return inaccurate information, there wouldn[G6] ’t be much benefit to adding another layer of checks. Any other ridesharing companies will still need to follow the state law for fingerprint checks, but since Uber and Lyft are by far the biggest businesses in the marketplace, the impact will likely not be significant.[G7]

There would have been a significant impact if Maryland regulators had decided to enforce the fingerprint background check requirement for Uber and Lyft. Maryland was the first state to consider imposing fingerprint background check requirements on ridesharing services. Previously, these restrictions had only occurred in cities. As a result, [G8] the Maryland scenario marked the first time that Uber was threatening to cease operations across an entire state. Plus, since some Maryland ridesharing drivers also often accept fares in Virginia and the District of Columbia, the effects of new regulations would likely have extended to outside the state. [G9] [G10] [G11] [G12]

Following the decision from the Maryland Public Service Commission, both Uber and Lyft noted that they had no further plans to cease operations in the state. Neither company will be completely exempted from the state law, though. While the Public Service Commission agreed to waive the fingerprint background check requirement for Uber and Lyft, both companies will still have to comply with other facets of the law. For instance, the ridesharing companies will have to rescreen each of their drivers on an annual basis. They will also have to let state regulators know if they choose to alter their background check policies in any way.[G13] [G14]


Tag Cloud
Recent Posts

Latest News

  • 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.
  • February 27 Governor Asa Hutchinson signed House Bill 2216 which amends the employer’s directives regarding a current or prospective employee’s social media account.
  • February 23 A Texas summer camp is in the spotlight after an unflattering investigation from a local news channel. The case has some parents asking what they can do to vet summer camp programs before enrolling their kids.