If you haven’t done so recently, now is a good time to review your company’s use of background checks and credit reports.
In a trend that show no signs of slowing down, lawsuits continue to be filed against employers for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act’s (“FCRA”) strict requirements concerning background check disclosure forms.
Employers in Michigan and surrounding states conducting background reports on job applicants received a favorable decision from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals when it comes to limiting liability for claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
Judge Lorna Schofield has agreed to stay a Fair Credit Reporting Act case until the U.S. Supreme Court issues its highly anticipated ruling in Robbins v. Spokeo, Inc.
The on-going discussion about what is permissible in a disclosure and authorization notice (hereinafter “notice”) for Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) purposes continues.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has just released a report on Big Data: A Tool for Inclusion or Exclusion? Understanding the Issues.
Most people do not appreciate what is meant by the term Big Data so the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a report which highlights that “potential benefits to consumers are significant, but businesses must ensure that their big data use does not lead to harmful exclusion or discrimination.”
U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Spokeo V. Robins Case Will Make Waves in Consumer Class Actions –one Way or Another
Back in early November of last year, Spokeo, Inc. (Spokeo) argued before the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to overturn a February 2014 ruling from the Ninth Circuit that revived the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) lawsuit filed against Spokeo by Thomas Robins.
California Supreme Court to Decide if California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act is “Unconstitutionally Vague”
The California Supreme Court will decide if the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA) is unconstitutionally vague. In Connor v. First Student Inc., the Court of Appeal rejected an employer’s argument that the ICRAA was unconstitutional because the employer could not ascertain whether it was required to comply with it or the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act.