Ohio School Employees Can Still Be Fired for Criminal Past

The Ohio Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of a state law that requires the dismissal of school employees with serious criminal convictions in their pasts.  I don’t know whether to celebrate this decision as it clearly would weed out those we don’t want in our schools or to be concerned about the ambiguous term “serious” and the lack of consideration for how long ago the offense took place.  I hope this encourages schools to conduct a more through background check of employees rather than relying solely on a state repository.

See excerpt from Cleveland Plain Dealer story below.  I wonder if this one is headed for the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a 5-2 decision issued Tuesday, the court said the law can continue to be applied to employees or applicants whose criminal history is revealed through background checks.

The law was challenged by an unnamed Cincinnati school district employee whose contract came up for renewal eight months after the law took effect in November 2007.

Previously, teachers had to pass background checks. But the new law extended the requirement to nonteaching employees like secretaries, janitors and mechanics.

The background check on the Cincinnati employee (called John Doe in the suit) turned up a drug-trafficking conviction from 1976 – 21 years before he was hired by the district. He was fired, as the law mandated.

But several months later, the Ohio Department of Education issued more specific rules outlining how the law should be enforced.

Under those rules, Doe stood a good chance of keeping his job since his crime happened more than 10 years before and he could have shown he was rehabilitated. The decision would have been up to the district.

The timing was bad luck for Doe, but he can’t have his job back and the law stands, the court ruled.

Full Story

Massachussetts “Ban the Box” Law Takes Effect November 4, 2010

All those that employ people in the state of Massachusetts please take note that part of the new CORI reforms announced last August go into effect on November 4, 2010.  Specifically, the “ban the box” portion of the law.  As of November 4th employers may no longer inquire on an applicant’s criminal background on an initial employment application.

Please note that this part of the law applies to all employers in the state, not just those using the CORI system for criminal background checks.

Other parts of the law which do not take effect until February 6, 2012:

  • Felony convictions older than or prison sentences completed more than 10 years ago will be removed from the system as will misdemeanors older the 5 years
  • An employers can only take adverse action after they have presented the candidate with the CORI report
  • Any employer that conducts five or more background checks on an annual basis must have a written criminal offender record policy
  • Employers must dispose of an individual’s CORI report not more than 7 years after their last date of employment

10/28/2010 New CORI Regulations Take Effect for Massachusetts Employers on November 4th

All those that employ people in the state of Massachusetts please take note that part of the new CORI reforms announced last August go into effect on November 4, 2010.  Specifically, the “ban the box” portion of the law.  As of November 4th employers may no longer inquire on an applicant’s criminal background on an initial employment application.

Please note that this part of the law applies to all employers in the state, not just those using the CORI system for criminal background checks.

Other parts of the law which do not take effect until February 6, 2012:

  • Felony convictions older than or prison sentences completed more than 10 years ago will be removed from the system as will misdemeanors older the 5 years
  • An employers can only take adverse action after they have presented the candidate with the CORI report
  • Any employer that conducts five or more background checks on an annual basis must have a written criminal offender record policy
  • Employers must dispose of an individual’s CORI report not more than 7 years after their last date of employment


Connecticut Gets Help To Fund Caregiver Background Checks

CT gets $2M to devise caregiver screening

Connecticut will use a $2 million federal grant to devise a background-screening format for potential hires in nursing homes and other caregivers, authorities say.

Connecticut was one of six states to receive a grant as part of the federal Affordable Care Act, the governor’s office says.

The background check program will help identify whether a job seeker has any kind of criminal history or other disqualifying information that could make him or her unsuitable to work directly with residents.

The state Departments of Public Health, Social Services and Public Safety will work together on the initiative, Gov. M. Jodi Rell said. Connecticut also must propose enabling legislation for the program in the next legislative session.

The governor said the national background check for each prospective direct patient care employee must include a history search of both state and federal criminal records, abuse and neglect registries, and databases, such as the Nurse Aide Registry.

Long-term care facilities or providers covered under the new program include nursing facilities, home health agencies, hospice providers, long-term care hospitals, and intermediate care facilities for persons with mental disabilities, adult day care, and personal care assistants.

More

Social Screening: Candidates – and Employers – Beware

Guest Article by Courtney Shelton Hunt, PhD, PHR, Principal, Renaissance Strategic Solutions (RSS)

Social screening has become increasingly popular. Employers are “googling” job candidates and searching social networking sites as part of their pre-employment background checks, and both employers and external recruiters are ramping up their efforts to source candidates using social networks. The practices have become so widespread that both established and start-up technology companies are creating software and services to facilitate these processes.

Though I have no doubt that social screening will become integrated into the employment practices of most organizations, I think both individuals and organizations should proceed with caution as we figure out the best ways to access and use available data in practical, legally defensible – and ethical – ways.

In this post, I provide a brief overview of social screening processes and share my advice and recommendations for both individuals and organizations. Not everyone will agree with my conservative approach. I welcome other people’s insights, healthy debate, and questions. The more we talk about these issues, the faster we’ll figure out the best way to proceed. Since I am in the US and this post is written from the US perspective, I especially welcome input from folks in other countries.

How Social Screening Works

The basic approach to social background checks is to enter an individual’s name and certain other defining characteristics (e.g., city, current/former employers, schools attended) to narrow the search. These searches can be conducted through search engines like Google or Bing, or on specific platforms like LinkedIn. The results will include any and all information that is publicly available, even from sites that are generally considered private.

Rather than looking for information on specific individuals, social sourcing is designed to identify folks who match a certain set of predefined criteria (e.g., a certified actuary with at least ten years of work experience who has expertise in defined benefit retirement plans and has worked for one of the large consulting firms). These searches, which are generally intended to identify highly-qualified passive candidates (i.e., those not actively looking for a new job), can also be conducted through the major search engines, but they are more likely to be run on specific platforms like LinkedIn.

Because conducting social searches can be cumbersome and time-consuming – as well as risky – technology companies now offer software and services to facilitate the process, primarily through automation. The companies introducing these new tools promote their ability to expedite and streamline the process and provide more accurate and reliable information. With respect to social background checks, they also promote their ability to produce results that are legally compliant – for example, by redacting protected-status information such as age, race, and religion.

Advice for Individuals

Even if you are not actively on the job market, your digital identity and activity can still be found through social searches. Therefore, it’s in your best interests to establish a strong positive digital presence and monitor and manage it regularly. There are myriad ways in which you can promote your professional brand, but for the purposes of this post my advice is limited to how you can protect it.

There are dozens of social media platforms in cyberspace, but LinkedIn, Twitter, and Facebook are emerging as “the big three” social networking sites. Here are my specific recommendations for these three platforms from a social screening perspective, as well as some general advice:

LinkedIn: Make sure you have a robust profile that focuses on your professional activities, connections, and experience. You certainly want to present yourself in the best possible light, but you should not misrepresent your background, accomplishments, and/or skills. Even though LinkedIn provides the ability to include some limited personal information (e.g., marital status, date of birth), there’s no good professional reason to do so. In addition, you should think carefully about information you share regarding your hobbies, as well as the groups you join, the comments you make, and the items you share. If your network is public, make sure you’re thoughtful about the people you connect with. Always be cognizant of your professional identity and how it’s represented by your information and activities.

Twitter: If you’re going to have a public account (and most people do), make sure your Twitter handle (account name) is professional, your photo/image is appropriate, and your page is designed well. You shouldn’t feel compelled to tweet, but if you do remember that quality is more important than quantity. As with your LinkedIn activity, be aware of how your tweets reflect on your professional identity. Your followers and those you follow are a reflection of you as well. Make sure you’re comfortable with what your Twitter relationships may say about you. If you want to use Twitter for both personal and professional reasons, you may want to consider creating two Twitter accounts to separate and better manage your identities and activities.

Facebook: Although you can use Facebook as part of your career management efforts, most people use it primarily as a personal platform. And though some folks see no problem blending the personal and professional, I advise against it. Specifically, I recommend restricting your network to personal relationships rather than professional ones, and making sure you properly establish your privacy settings so that only certain information is publicly available.

Two things to keep in mind about tight privacy settings, one good and one not so good:

The good news: you can still use Facebook to learn about organizations and opportunities, promote yourself as a professional, and make connections. You don’t have to friend anyone to have a professional exchange with them on Facebook. And commenting on walls or having email exchanges won’t give others access to your profile information.

The not-so-good news: Always remember that even private digital information can become public. Act accordingly.

Additional recommendations:

  • Review the photos in which you’ve been tagged, and check the profiles of the friends who’ve tagged you (you may need to have someone else do this). If their profiles are unprotected, you may want to untag yourself. You may even want to ask them to delete the picture(s).
  • Review and pare down your list of friends. Unfriend folks you don’t really know, as well as folks you only have a professional relationship with (connect with them on LinkedIn instead).
  • Double check the pages you’ve liked and the groups you’ve joined (or been added to). Delete yourself from any pages/groups that could poorly reflect on you as a professional.

Some people may advocate establishing two Facebook accounts, one for personal use and one for private use. Doing so is a violation of Facebook’s terms of use, however, so I advise against it. Instead, leverage a platform like LinkedIn for your professional identity.


Other Social Media Platforms

If you have accounts on other social media sites (e.g., YouTube, Flickr, SlideShare), and/or you have a blog, define where the public/private boundary should be drawn for each and make the necessary changes to your account profiles and/or content. Err on the side of conservatism – something that may seem harmless to you could easily be misinterpreted by someone in a way that’s harmful to your interests.

Google Alerts

Set up Google alerts on your name, similar to what a prospective employer might search on. Make sure you are satisfied – or can at least live with – the information contained in the resulting links. If you don’t like what you find, take whatever action you can to clean up your digital presence.

Think before You Speak

Just as in real life, you will be judged on a whole host of factors in cyberspace. And since digital activity lacks the context and nuance that in-person interactions provide, those judgments – rightfully or wrongly – can be harsher. You should assume that anything you share on a digital platform can become public and remember to:

  • Present yourself and your ideas in a positive, civil manner
  • Use good grammar and check for typos
  • Abide by the explicit and implicit norms of a given platform/community
  • Make sure your contributions and comments on public forums are substantive
  • Don’t use foul language or make off-color comments (including jokes) that could be construed as offensive
  • Know your current employer’s social media and related policies and be sure to abide by them


Advice for Organizations

Although social sourcing and social background checking can be very powerful hiring tools, they are far from being risk-free. In fact, the risks may be even greater because each digital search leaves a discoverable trail and creates new documentation and tracking responsibilities. And just because social screening is a new frontier, that doesn’t mean the old rules (e.g., anti-discrimination laws) don’t apply.

Employers should also be careful with respect to their stance regarding individuals’ responsibility to protect their private information. It’s absolutely true that people are responsible for protecting their own privacy; however, a lot of people haven’t realized that yet, or they haven’t figured out how to do it. They are also dependent on and vulnerable to the actions of others, so they don’t have perfect control. Regardless, employers must accept the fact that they assume responsibility for what they see once they access an individual’s social networking profiles and activities. That responsibility adds another important element of risk.

Of the two screening processes, social sourcing creates fewer risks than social background checks. Generally speaking, employers and recruiters need to establish sourcing search processes that are internally consistent and legally defensible (at federal, state, and local levels). The searches should be based on bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQs) and job-specific education, skills and experiences, and should properly address risks such as adverse impact and adverse selection. The processes may also include steps to insure that legally-protected candidate information is not revealed to decision makers too early in the sourcing process.

The risks associated with conducting social background checks include cases of mistaken identity, fake or prank accounts and activity, and inaccurate information. There are also a host of compliance issues to be managed with respect to laws at the federal, state and local levels. These include the non-discrimination laws referenced above, as well as the Fair Credit Report Act (if a third-party is used to conduct the checks) and the Stored Communications Act. And beyond the legal issues are ethical and cultural considerations that organizations should not ignore or be too quick to dismiss.

Before HR professionals, hiring managers and recruiters engage in social background checking, they should ask themselves the following questions:

  1. Do we have a legitimate business reason for conducting these searches? If so, what is it? What would we learn from a social background check that we wouldn’t learn from the applicant review and interview process?
  2. Would we go to a candidate’s house and hang outside to check their comings and goings, as well as their friends, family & other visitors? Would we go through their garbage? Would we follow them to a cafe, restaurant or bar and listen in on their conversations? If not, why are we engaging in comparable activity in cyberspace?
  3. Would we be comfortable with other people conducting similar searches on us, whether they be future employers or employees? Are our digital presences above reproach?
  4. If we were judged by the same criteria we’re now considering using to judge others, would we be in our current positions? Would we even be employable?
  5. What kind of message do we want to send to current and prospective employees with respect to our regard for their privacy and our perspective on trust?
  6. Are we aware of the legal risks associated with social searches? Do we know what the boundaries are, by relevant state (and locality?), and do we have a system for staying within those lines? Are we prepared to address the potential negative consequences if someone concludes we’ve violated their rights in some way?

Concerns over negligent hiring and the desire to do appropriate due diligence before hiring someone are valid arguments for conducting social background checks, but employers shouldn’t let the relatively easy access to digital data lead them to act in ways that are not in their long-term best interests. Employers who are seriously concerned about their negligent hiring risks need to develop global, internally consistent, and legally defensible approaches to conducting background checks. Regardless of whether they choose to do them themselves manually or use software and/or services from a third party, employers should engage in the appropriate due diligence – including consulting internal or outside counsel – to ensure their processes are legally sound at federal, state and local levels.

And since they are a significant source of vulnerability, organizations must make sure that hiring managers are properly educated and trained about what they can and cannot do when sourcing, evaluating and deciding on candidates for specific jobs.

Conclusion

The fundamentals of candidate sourcing and background checking haven’t changed in the Digital Era, but the potential risks and rewards of social screening are game changers. Individuals who misrepresent their qualifications, say/do things that reflect poor judgment, and engage in dubious and illegal activity are much more likely to have their poor choices exposed when information about them is shared in cyberspace. Similarly, employers who have traditionally played fast and loose with the law when sourcing and screening candidates now have a greater chance of having their methods be revealed and challenged. Even employers who don’t intentionally thumb their noses at the law are vulnerable if they don’t develop defensible processes for leveraging the new technologies.

My best advice is to proceed with caution. As I indicated above, however, not everyone will agree with my conservative approach. I welcome other people’s insights, healthy debate, and questions. The more we talk about these issues, the faster we’ll figure out the best way to proceed.

Courtney Hunt, PhD is the principal of Renaissance Strategic Solutions (RSS), a consultancy that helps organizations increase their effectiveness through the design and implementation of innovative and leading-edge human capital and communication strategies and programs. RSS works with organizations of all sizes in both the for-profit and not-for-profit sectors, in a wide range of industries. RSS is the founder and sponsor of the Social Media in Organizations (SMinOrgs) Community. Developing this community and meeting the needs of practitioners with respect to the strategic implications of social media is RSS’s primary focus. In addition to providing training on what social media is and how to use it, Courtney offers her expertise to clients interested in developing social media strategies and creating and implementing programs that leverage social media. She also helps organizations create and implement social media policies and provide training to ensure both managers and employees understand their rights and responsibilities. For more details on RSS and the SMinOrgs Community, go to http://renaissance-solutions.com and http://sminorgs.net.

Courtney has held several human resources and organizational development positions throughout her career, and has also worked in the communications, accounting and information technology fields. She has been a college professor for many years.

Employment Credit Reports Have Value: I Hope the EEOC Listened

Yesterday, the EEOC held hearings to “explore” whether employers should be allowed to review a job applicant’s credit report before making a hiring decision.  I say “explore” because they clearly are against this legal employment screening business practice and assert that it can be discriminatory.

“An ever increasing number of job applicants and workers are being exposed to employment screening tools, such as credit checks, that could unfairly exclude them from job opportunities,” said Jacqueline Berrien, chairwoman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

I’ll start by saying that I am by no means the great defender of credit reports.  I believe that a company should not indiscriminately run credit reports on all candidates unless required to do so by regulation or necessitated by job responsibility.  And when you analyze the statistics from SHRM’s Background Checking Survey (on Credit Reports), businesses in general seem to support that statement (see study below).

They found that only 13% of all organizations were running credit reports on all candidates, 47% were checking credit on select candidates and the remainder of respondents were not using them at all.  Of those that review credit reports on select workers, 91% do so because the candidate would have fiduciary and financial responsibilities.  46% do so because the person was an executive level candidate.

EmployeeScreenIQ’s Screening Trends survey found that only 1/3rd of respondents thought credit checks were a high priority in the hiring process.  15% said they evaluated credit on all candidates, 45% said they did so on select candidates and 39% said they never reviewed credit when making a hiring decision.

I understand that this is becoming a hot button issue, but I think our state and federal governments and agencies need to take a step back and analyze this information before abolishing the practice.  The states of Hawaii, Oregon, Washington and Illinois  have already passed legislation aimed at curbing the use of employment credit reports, with around 19 other states with proposed legislation.  There is a  federal effort to do the same and of course, the EEOC would be only so happy to see this measure pass.  It’s important to note that there are a number existing laws that provide protection for job candidates against those that would misuse employment credit reports.  Seyfarth Shaw attorney Pam Devata provided testimony concerning these laws.

“While some have argued that additional restrictions are needed with respect to the use of credit in employment, I believe that adequate protections are already in place with respect to an employer’s use of credit reports for employment purposes. The Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and state laws all protect consumers’ rights.

As to Pam’s point, California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has twice vetoed a state bill aimed to ban employment credit reports.  His rationale the second time around was as follows:

“I am returning Assembly Bill 943 without my signature. This bill would prohibit the use of consumer credit reports for employment purposes unless the information is either substantially job related, as defined, or required by law to be disclosed to or obtained by the user of the report.

This bill is similar to legislation I vetoed last year on the basis that California’s employers and businesses have inherent needs to obtain information about applicants for employment and existing law already provides protections for employees from improper use of credit reports.

As with last year’s bill, this measure would also significantly increase the exposure for potential litigation over the use of credit checks. For these reasons, I am unable to sign this bill.”

Devata goes on to say:

“. . . the FCRA has very stringent and detailed procedures that employers must follow before they use credit reports in whole or in part in making hiring or other employment decisions. The FCRA requires the following as it relates to an employer’s use of credit reports:

  • Before requesting a credit report, an employer must tell a consumer that a credit check will be requested, and must obtain the employee’s consent to obtain the credit information.
  • Before obtaining a credit report, an employer must certify to a third party consumer reporting agency the following: (1) that it has a permissible purpose to obtain the information, (2) that the employer will comply with the disclosure and authorization and adverse action provisions in the FCRA, and (3) that the employer will not use “information from the consumer report … in violation of any applicable Federal or State equal employment opportunity law or regulation”
  • Before taking any adverse action, in whole or in part based on information in the credit report, an employer must follow a two-step adverse action process which requires that the consumer: (1) be given a copy of his or her report and a copy of the Federal Trade Commission’s “Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act,” and (2) be told of his or her right to dispute the accuracy or completeness of information in the report prior to adverse action being taken.

While those opposed to employers’ use of credit checks have sometimes opined that employers may not tell applicants that the reason they are being denied employment is based on a credit report, to not do so would both be contrary to federal and many state laws as well as my experience in working with employers large and small.

No employer could do so without leaving an informational trail of the credit search. Unlike a criminal record that has no research trail, every time a credit check is requested, it shows up as a “soft-hit” on a person’s credit history with the name of the entity requesting the report as well as the purpose for which it was requested. In my experience, employers are aware of this fact. They are also aware that if an applicant makes it to the final stages of the hiring process (for example, following completion of an application, an interview or conditional offer), and then is not hired, the applicant often assumes that the decision may have something to do with the final information received by an employer—oftentimes a background check.

Perhaps this is another reason why 87% of employers go above merely allowing an applicant to dispute information in his or her report, but also speak directly to applicants allowing them to explain the circumstances surrounding information in their credit report before making an employment decision. Finally, employers are knowledgeable of their responsibilities under the FCRA to provide a copy of the report to the applicant and allow an applicant to dispute information in the report. Employers who fail to follow the FCRA risk private actions from consumers for negligent non-compliance and/or willful non-compliance as well as possible investigation from the Federal Trade Commission.”

Check out Pam’s full testimony

In my opinion, much of the backlash against credit reports is a populist response to our current economic climate.  After all, people are struggling.  However, another important finding from the SHRM study is that employers aren’t just reviewing the last couple of years worth of credit history but rather looking at the entire report as a “body of work”.  Most employers understand that finding someone with perfect credit is near impossible, even in good times.  Today, if companies waited around for candidates with perfect credit, they wouldn’t be able to hire anyone.  They also know that unless regulated, that bad credit alone will not disqualify someone from employment.  Further, when derogatory information is found, a great majority are asking for an explanation before taking action.

It is important to consider that most companies are using this tool to gauge personal responsibility.  If a person has a history of mishandling their own finances, are they fit to manage the finances of their employer?  Can they be trusted with personal information on a company’s customers?

The government should rely on the real facts, not anecdotes or public misunderstandings and enforce the current laws. I have no problem with the EEOC (and the states) going after those that abuse or intentionally misuse employment credit reports. But don’t let a small number of isolated incidents ruin everyone else’s ability to protect themselves, their employees and their customers.

Background Screening White Paper Reveals Risks of Adjudication Modules

Many employers turn to adjudication modules for guidance when they discover an applicant has a criminal conviction or poor credit. Such modules are designed to provide hiring mangers with a simple guide for making complicated decisions; however, organizations that blindly follow them could be exposed to significant liability as the government cracks down on discriminatory hiring practices.

A new white paper from EmployeeScreenIQ reveals the challenges of these modules and offers ways for hiring professionals to avoid a legal slippery slope. “Adjudication Modules and the EEOC: When Consistency Becomes a Liability” is written by employment background screening authority Nick Fishman and covers the following:

  • The EEOC’s recent scrutiny of hiring practices, including recent lawsuits
  • New laws such as Illinois’ “Employee Credit Privacy Act” that restrict the use of credit history and criminal records in employment decisions
  • The dangers of allowing third-party providers to develop modules and judge applicants
  • “Do’s and don’ts” tips for managers that use adjudication modules

Download a complimentary copy of EmployeeScreenIQ’s new article by clicking here.

10/20/2010 New Background Screening White Paper Reveals Legal Risks of Adjudication Modules

Many employers turn to adjudication modules for guidance when they discover an applicant has a criminal conviction or poor credit. A new white paper from EmployeeScreenIQ reveals the challenges of these modules and offers ways for hiring professionals to avoid a legal slippery slope.

“Adjudication Modules and the EEOC: When Consistency Becomes a Liability” is now available from the global employment screening company. The paper covers the following:

  • The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s recent scrutiny of hiring practices, including recent lawsuits
  • New laws such as Illinois’ “Employee Credit Privacy Act” that restrict the use of credit history and criminal records in employment decisions
  • The dangers of allowing third-party providers to develop modules and judge applicants
  • “Do’s and don’ts” tips for managers that use adjudication modules

“Adjudication modules are designed to provide hiring mangers with a simple guide for making complicated decisions,” said Nick Fishman, chief marketing officer for EmployeeScreenIQ. “However, organizations that blindly follow them could be exposed to significant liability as the government cracks down on discriminatory hiring practices.”

Adjudication Modules: When Consistency Becomes a Liability

Many employers turn to adjudication modules for guidance when they discover an applicant has a criminal conviction or poor credit. Such modules are designed to provide hiring mangers with a simple guide for making complicated decisions; however, organizations that blindly follow them could be exposed to significant liability as the government cracks down on discriminatory hiring practices.

A new white paper from EmployeeScreenIQ reveals the challenges of these modules and offers ways for hiring professionals to avoid a legal slippery slope. “Adjudication Modules and the EEOC: When Consistency Becomes a Liability” is written by employment background screening authority Nick Fishman and covers the following:

  • The EEOC’s recent scrutiny of hiring practices, including recent lawsuits
  • New laws such as Illinois’ “Employee Credit Privacy Act” that restrict the use of credit history and criminal records in employment decisions
  • The dangers of allowing third-party providers to develop modules and judge applicants
  • “Do’s and don’ts” tips for managers that use adjudication modules

EEOC Weighs Position on Credit Reports for Employment Screening

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is holding meetings on Wednesday (October 20, 2010) to investigate the practice of using credit reports as part of the employment screening process.  In fact, our attorney, Pam Devata of Seyfarth Shaw has asked by the EEOC to provide guidance on the matter and will testify about the misperceptions regarding the use of employment credit reports by employers.

This has been a hot topic as of late (see our white paper: Credit Reports and the Hiring Process).

Last month, the House Financial Services Committee conducted a hearing to discuss the Equal Employment for All Act, a bill amending the Fair Credit Reporting Act to make it unlawful to discriminate against job applicants based solely on consumer credit reports. (There are some exceptions to the proposed act.)