The Importance of Written Policies and Procedures

By Michael Klazema on 7/17/2015

A federal class action lawsuit was filed June 9, 2015, in the California Northern District Court which should serve as a reminder to employers of the importance of complying with the Fair Credit Report Act when conducting background screening for employment purposes.  The plaintiff’s attorneys in the case allege that a car rental company willfully violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) in the way it used background checks of job applicants. This case is important because it shows how proactive handling of applicants can violate the FCRA.

Using consumer reports is highly regulated. The FCRA places many requirements on those who furnish consumer reports and on those who use them. Whenever a consumer report is obtained for employment purposes, additional compliance measures are placed on the employer.

Employers must provide job applicants with a clear, conspicuous, written disclosure in a standalone document and get the applicant’s express written authorization before conducting a background check.  The FCRA also requires that, before taking adverse employment action (i.e., denying or revoking a job offer) based on a background check’s results, employers must provide the applicant with a copy of the consumer report and a summary of the applicant’s rights under the FCRA, and give the applicant a reasonable amount of time to respond or dispute the accuracy of the report. A minimum of five business days has been established as reasonable for notices delivered by mail.  Also, the FCRA requires that, after taking adverse employment action, the employer must provide notice of the adverse action to the applicant, provide the applicant with contact information for the consumer reporting agency that prepared the report, and provide the applicant with a summary of his or her rights under the FCRA.

In this case, the plaintiff’s attorneys allege that the employer violated the FCRA by:

  1. Failing to inform applicants in a clear, conspicuous, written document consisting only of the disclosure that it may procure a consumer report for employment purposes;
  2. Failing to obtain written authorization for the procurement of consumer reports; and
  3. Using consumer reports to make adverse employment decisions without first providing the applicant with sufficient and timely notification of its intent to take adverse action, a copy of the report, and a summary of the applicant’s rights under the FCRA.

The alleged facts of the last claim reveal a trap for proactive recruiting departments that value serving their applicants. As with many employers, the employer had allegedly retained the consumer reporting agency to mail a copy of the report to the applicant if the report might be adverse to the applicant. The plaintiff’s attorneys allege that the employer obtained a background check and that the applicant’s recruiter informed him that he failed the background check by phone very shortly after it was complete ― before the consumer reporting agency had an opportunity to send a copy of the report to the applicant.

This is a trap for any motivated, applicant-oriented recruiting department that believes in transparency and communication. The presumably well-meaning recruiter allegedly communicated the result of the background check in a manner that indicated finality, where the pre-adverse-action notice that allegedly went in the mail the next day would likely have invited a dispute of any inaccurate or incomplete information.

The bases for this lawsuit are for alleged failures that can be prevented by having written policies and procedures, and adhering to those policies and procedures. The case also highlights the importance of employers working closely with their consumer reporting agency to ensure compliance. Written policies and procedures can be used to show a court that the employer does not willfully violate the FCRA, but rather any alleged violation is out of the ordinary practice.

To address this particular case, an employer would need to adopt a policy ― and train on it ― that recruiters are not to communicate or take action on a background check until at least five business days from the date of the pre-adverse-action notice. Because such a policy is counter-intuitive for a motivated recruiting department, employers should consider disallowing line personnel from having access to reports until at least five business days after a pre-adverse-action notice is sent.

Given the recent wave of class action lawsuits involving alleged FCRA violations, and the substantial monetary assessments being awarded to plaintiffs, this is an issue that is not going away any time soon. Please contact client services if you have any questions or suggestions about our services, or for a review of your background screening policies and procedures.

What Employers Should Do:

  • Employers should review their policies and procedures about background checks annually to ensure compliance with the FCRA and state laws. This includes a policy that recruiters are not to communicate or take action on a background check until at least five business days from the date of the pre-adverse-action notice.
  • In combination with its policy reviews, employers should train their employees on compliance with its policies and procedures.
  • Employers should regularly follow-up with their field operations about how and when applicants are notified of their background check results.

For more details on the FCRA, EEOC Guidance, various state laws and much more, please visit’s compliance resources and compliance updates archives.

Tag Cloud
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, 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 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.