Blog

 
     

Ninth Circuit Rules that Disclosures Containing Waivers Violate the FCRA

By Michael Klazema on 3/8/2017

For the past 5 years, backgroundchecks.com has reported rulings of district courts around the country that have ruled that an employer’s inclusion of a liability waiver or other extraneous information in a disclosure violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act’s (“FCRA”) disclosure requirements found in §604(b)(2)(a). Now, for the first time, a federal court of appeals has weighed in on the disclosure requirement. 

In Syed v. M-I, LLC, the court held that “in light of the clear statutory language that the disclosure document must consist ‘solely’ of the disclosure, a prospective employer’s violation of the FCRA is ‘willful’ when the employer includes terms in addition to the disclosure, such as the liability waiver here, before procuring a consumer report or causing one to be procured.”

This ruling is important for two reasonsFirst, an opinion by an appellate court is binding on all of the district courts in that circuit. Therefore, all federal courts in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington must follow the ruling of this case. Other courts across the country may also choose to follow the ruling, but are not required to.  Second, this case stands for the point that any employer who includes a liability waiver in its FCRA disclosure has willfully violated the law and the plaintiff does not need to prove anything else to win his case.

The Court explained that the FCRA’s disclosure requirement is clear – it must be in a document that “consists solely of the disclosure.” Solely means “alone; singly” or “entirely; exclusively.”  It continued by saying that no reasonable person could conclude that the provision allows the inclusion of a liability waiver.  The FCRA’s employment disclosure provision “says what it means and means what it says” and “inclusion of a liability waiver in the statutorily mandated disclosure document comports with no reasonable interpretation” of §604(b)(2). Finally, the court ruled that because the statute is not subject to a range of plausible interpretations, the employer acted in reckless disregard of its statutory duties.

Because the court has ruled that the employer violated the FCRA as a matter of law, the plaintiff and the class he represents are entitled to statutory damages in the amount of $100 to $1000 each. The case will be remanded to the district court to decide the appropriate amount of damages.

What this update means to you:

  • CHECK YOUR DISCLOSURES TODAY.
  • Your FCRA disclosure document (1) should include nothing more than a statement that you intend to obtain a consumer report for purposes of establishing eligibility for employment; (2) should not include any extraneous language, including liability waivers; (3) should not be included in a document with disclosures of other rights or obligations, such as those mandated by state law; (4) should not be in the same document or online screen as the general employment application; and (5) should be on a separate piece of paper from the authorization.

The full opinion may be found here: Syed v. M-I, LLC, No. 14-17186, in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/01/20/14-17186.pdf

backgroundchecks.com's previous reporting on court cases involving the FCRA’s disclosure obligation may be found here: http://www.backgroundbiz.com/compliance/compliance-updates.asp#lawsuitsanddecisions


Tag Cloud
Categories
Recent Posts

Latest News

  • March 13 — A Denver hospital was in the headlines last year for hiring a surgery technician who stole syringes of the painkiller fentanyl. New information suggests that a more thorough background check could have flagged the man’s addiction issues.
  • March 08 — On September 26, 2016, the state of California passed Assembly Bill 1843 that amended the Labor Code by prohibiting employers from asking an applicant for employment to disclose certain juvenile records. The amended Labor Code has been effective since January 1, 2017.
  • March 08 — For the past 5 years, backgroundchecks.com has reported rulings of district courts around the country that have ruled that an employer’s inclusion of a liability waiver or other extraneous information in a disclosure violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act’s (“FCRA”) disclosure requirements found in §604(b)(2)(a). Now, for the first time, a federal court of appeals has weighed in on the disclosure requirement.
  • March 07 — The Kentucky State Senate has approved a piece of legislation that would open the state’s child abuse and neglect registry to schools, camps, and parents. If passed, the law would allow anyone to request a search of the database.
  • March 06 — A federal judge in Florida has ruled that a plaintiff with a case against Amazon.com has the right to sue the company for an alleged violation of the FCRA. The suit accuses Amazon of failing to provide a standalone background check disclosure form free of extraneous information.
  • March 05 — A federal judge in Florida has ruled that a plaintiff with a case against Amazon.com has the right to sue the company for an alleged violation of the FCRA. The suit accuses Amazon of failing to provide a standalone background check disclosure form free of extraneous information.
  • February 21 — In January, a Washington, D.C. contractor was fired for being reckless with confidential patient files. The woman had a criminal record with two felony convictions, but a local background check did not list the offenses.
  • February 16 — A state representative in Wisconsin aims to make it a Class A misdemeanor to lie on a state application for professional licensing. It is illegal to lie on licensing applications but there is no protocol for prosecuting offenders.
  • February 14 — The schools in the University of Wisconsin System are considering criminal background checks for all student applicants. The deliberation was sparked by protests responding to a student on the UW-Madison campus who tried to start a white nationalist group.
  • February 09 — Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin signed an executive order banning the box in the state government’s executive branch.