California Limits Credit Reports

By Michael Klazema on 10/14/2011

Like most bills restricting the use of credit reports in employment decisions, AB 22 includes categorical exemptions, allowing employers to obtain credit reports in situations including the following:

  1. A managerial position.
  2. A position in the state Department of Justice.
  3. That of a sworn peace officer or other law enforcement position.
  4. A position for which the information contained in the report is required by law.
  5. A position that involves regular access, for any purpose other than the routine solicitation and processing of credit card applications in a retail establishment, to all of the following types of information of any one person:
    1. Bank or credit card account information.  
    2. Social security number.  
    3. Date of birth.  
  6. position in which the person is, or would be, any of the following:
    1. A named signatory on the bank or credit card account of the employer.
    2. Authorized to transfer money on behalf of the employer.
    3. Authorized to enter into financial contracts on behalf of the employer.  
  7. A position that involves access to confidential or proprietary information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, process or trade secret that (i) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who may obtain economic value from the disclosure or use of the information, and (ii) is the subject of an effort that is reasonable under the circumstances to maintain secrecy of the information.
  8. A position that involves regular access to cash totaling ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or more of the employer, a customer, or client, during the workda.

Before requesting a credit report in any of these situations, the employer must provide the applicant or employee a notice that:

  1. says that the employer will use the report;
  2. identifies the source of the report;
  3. identifies the specific basis listed above that allows the credit report; and
  4. allows the applicant or employee to request a free copy of the report from the employer by checking a box.

If the employee checks the box, the employer must request a copy for the applicant or employee at the same time as the employer requests the report. The employer may not charge the applicant or employee for the copy.

The law does not apply to any position with a financial institution subject to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

Clients should immediately plan on how to change their background screening notices to applicants and employees.’s recommendation is that, before the end of 2011 clients should:

  1. compile a list of all positions for which they request credit reports in California;
  2. determine whether any of the listed reasons permit it to obtain the credit report for each position;
  3. for positions without a permitted reason, stop ordering credit reports;
  4. for positions with a permitted reason, create modified disclosure and authorization forms to specify the reason and the other required components of the notice.

For the purpose of identifying the source of the credit report, believes that the best approach when buying credit reports from a credit bureau through a reseller (like is to state that you are obtaining the report from the credit bureau through the reseller. (For example, “We will obtain the credit report from TransUnion through”)

For more information on how this update may affect your screening program and how can help, please contact customer service.

Tag Cloud
Recent Posts

Latest News

  • March 20 Employers who use E-Verify must follow the proper steps and procedures when they receive a “tentative non-confirmation notice” from either the Social Security Administration or Department of Homeland Security. Failure to follow the proper procedures can cost employers both time and money. 
  • 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. 
  • 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.