Washington, D.C. Restricts Employer Use of Credit Information for Employment Purposes

By Michael Klazema on 2/22/2017

The new law defines “credit information,” as any written, oral, or communication of information bearing on an employee’s creditworthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, or credit history. In addition, “inquire” means any direct or indirect conduct intended to gather credit information using any method, including application form, interviews, and credit history checks.

There are exceptions to this law. The prohibition does not apply:

  1. Where an employer is otherwise required by District law to require, request, suggest, or cause any employee to submit credit information, or use, accept, refer to, or inquire into an employee’s credit information;
  2. Where an employee is applying for a position as or is employed as a police officer with the Metropolitan Police Department;
  3. To the Office of the Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia;
  4. Where an employee is required to possess a security clearance under District law;
  5. To disclosures by District government employees of their credit information to the Board of Ethics and Government Accountability or the Office of the Inspector General, or to the use of such disclosures by those agencies;
  6. To financial institutions, where the position involves access to personal financial information; or
  7. Where an employer requests or receives credit information pursuant to the lawful subpoena, court order, or law enforcement investigation.

The Commission of Human Rights is charged with enforcing the new law. Employers who commit discriminatory practice or violate the law must pay the complainant:

  • $1,000 for first violation;
  • $2,500 for second violation; and
  • $5,000 for each subsequent violation.

The law will take effect after a 30-day period of congressional review and is accessible here for review:

What This Means to You:

  • Employers in Washington D.C. cannot ask about or use an applicant’s or employee’s credit information for most employment purposes (with some exceptions).
  • Employers who violate the law must pay the complainant $1,000 for first violation, $2,500 for second violation, and $5,000 for each subsequent violation.
  • The law will come into effect on March 17, 2017.
  • Employers should determine whether they obtain credit reports on D.C. employees; and if so, whether any exemption or federal pre-exemption applies; and, if not, remove credit reports from their background screening in D.C.

Employers with functions severely affected by this restriction should consider relocating those functions out of D.C.

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.