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

  • July 17 — Hourly Employee Screening: What Makes It Unique and Important infographic?Modern employers conduct background checks on most of the people they hire. These checks are most often used to screen full-time salaried workers. Part-timers and hourly employees are typically less likely to face a thorough background check or even go through a background screening at all. According to a survey conducted by HR.com, 67 percent of employers screen all of their part-time employees, compared to 83 percent of their full-time employees.
  • July 17 A Kentucky school district recently decided to stop paying for volunteer background checks. Going forward, volunteers will be expected to cover the cost of their own checks, which is $10 per person.
  • July 12 Seeking fresh employees for businesses, some states seek to reduce the number of people denied employment based on old or nonviolent crimes.
  • July 11 Multinational aerospace company - Safran Group - trusts backgroundchecks.com to screen new hires, The products they manufacture can have major implications for aircraft safety and worldwide security. As such, the company needs to be extremely careful and deliberate about who it trusts to join the organization.
  • July 11 Recently cited for driving too fast? Here’s what a speeding ticket will do to your background check report.
  • July 10

    Could your business be vulnerable to employee theft? Protect yourself with more thorough background checks.


  • July 09 While Social Security Numbers aren’t required for criminal history checks, they can be beneficial. Here’s why.
  • July 05

    In June, Chicago Public Schools came under fire after a Chicago Tribune piece accused the district of not protecting students from sexual abusers. The district has announced plans to run background checks on all employees.


  • July 04 — How important are volunteer background checks? Do they even matter?
    Organizations that rely in part on volunteer labor consistently find themselves asking these questions. The assumption is usually that volunteer background checks are less important than background checks for full-time or part-time employees. According to a CareerBuilder survey from 2016, 72 percent of employers conduct background checks on all employees. A parallel statistic isn’t even available for volunteer checks. They are less common – and less valued.
  • July 03 #MeToo harassment allegations continue to reshape workplaces in every industry. As a result, many companies are looking to safeguard themselves from liability.