Nevada Restricts Employers’ Use of Consumer Credit Reports or Other Credit Information

By Michael Klazema on 6/4/2013

The legislation prohibits employers from:

  1. Requiring an employee or prospective employee to submit to a credit report or other credit information as a condition of employment.
  2. Using, accepting, referring to, or inquiring about a consumer credit report or other credit information.
  3. Taking or threatening adverse action against a person who refuses to submit to a consumer credit report.
  4. Taking or threatening adverse employment action based on an individual’s consumer credit report or other credit information.
  5. Taking or threatening adverse action against an employee or prospective employee in retaliation for exercising his or her rights or the rights of another person. This includes filing a complaint or a legal proceeding, or testifying in a legal proceeding.

The law applies to both private and public employers in the State of Nevada, with few exceptions. Employers may request or consider consumer credit report or other credit information for employment purposes only if it is required or authorized to do so by a state or federal law. Credit information may also be considered if an employer reasonably believes that an employee or applicant has engaged in activity which may constitute a violation of a state or federal law. The final exception to this new law is the credit information must be “job related.” To apply this exception, the duties of the position must involve:

  1. Responsibility for financial assets or employment with a financial institution;
  2. Access to confidential or proprietary information;
  3. Managerial or supervisory responsibility;
  4. Direct exercise of law enforcement authority as a government employee;
  5. Responsibility for or access to another person’s financial information; or
  6. Employment with a licensed gaming establishment.

If an employer violates the new law, civil remedies include the right of employment for prospective employees, and the right of reinstatement or promotion for employees. The employer may also be assessed lost wages and benefits, as well as reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees. The new law allows enforcement by way of a class action.

The law also allows the state’s Labor Commissioner to impose administrative penalties of up to $9,000 per violation and to bring an action for an injunction requiring compliance with the law.

Other states with similar legislation are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.

This new legislation may be accessed here:

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.