Employers seeking to conduct background checks on job applicants have a legal obligation to comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). This act requires that employers provide clear and conspicuous disclosures to job applicants and obtain written authorization from them before conducting a background check. 

Recently, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California examined a case that explores the disclosures and their compliance with the FCRA. In Keefer v. Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc., a plaintiff claimed that the defendant violated the FCRA by not having disclosures that were clear and conspicuous and in a standalone document. However, the district court rejected this claim, granting the employer’s motion for summary judgment. 

The case centers around a hiring process in which the plaintiff was provided with a disclosure and authorization form for the employer to conduct a background check. The disclosure stated, “By signing below, you hereby authorize the Company to procure report(s) on your background as described above from any third party or consumer reporting agency contacted by the Company.” The plaintiff argued that the disclosure was not clear and conspicuous and was not presented in a standalone document as required by the FCRA. 

The district court disagreed with the plaintiff’s arguments, finding that the disclosure satisfied the “clear and conspicuous” requirement of the FCRA. Specifically, the court determined that the use of the term “the Company” did not create excess confusion and that the disclosure was “readily noticeable” to the consumer despite the use of multiple disclosures in the same document. 

The plaintiff further argued that extraneous information on the disclosure and authorization form, such as the Ryder Integrated logo and trademark, navigation buttons, and an “Application FAQs” hyperlink, violated the standalone document requirement of the FCRA. However, the district court rejected these claims and ultimately ruled in favor of the employer, finding that the disclosure complied with the FCRA. 

The Keefer v. Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc. case serves as an important reminder for employers to ensure that their background check disclosures comply with the FCRA. While the FCRA allows for some helpful information to be included in the disclosure, it’s essential to ensure that the disclosure is clear, conspicuous, and presented as a standalone document to avoid potential legal challenges. 

It’s cheaper to avoid litigation than it is to win. When is the last time you reviewed your screening program?

BINGO!

Early this year I checked another box on my suburb dad bingo card... coaching my kids' team. And just like everyone else interacting with the kids I filled out a background check form and turned it in. Unlike everyone else, I was eager to get the results. No, I wasn't worried about what they'd find. I was curious to see how well they were looking. Especially since our county isn't in most criminal databases. The lack of appropriate disclosures upfront should've given it away... 

I waited... days turned to weeks and nothing. Without a straight answer from the league, I finally called the provider and found it was never ran. Turns out while we had been coaching the kids for the past month & a half the forms had been sitting the President's desk. Baffled as to why, we spoke, and he described a time intensive process that fell to the bottom of the leadership's priority list. 

In talking with the board, I was able to dispel the following the myths they and probably most people have:

1. The background check process is complex.

"Simplicity... is the last limit of experience and last effort of genius." - George Sand

Yes, adjudicating the results can be difficult at times however initiating a background check should be easy-peasy. Background screeners all have roughly the same tools at their disposal, the difference is knowing how & when to utilize them to create simple easy to follow processes that supports the end-user. If it's difficult, something's wrong.

2. Comprehensive background checks cost too much and take too long..

Yes, there are some counties that can take forever (looking at you San Luis Obispo) but on average comprehensive results should take 1-3 days. Take us for example, we currently average a little over a day. While the database searches, aka national/muti-state/etc, can complete in a matter of seconds they're notoriously incomplete. Even the FBI admits their own NCIC database is incomplete. As for cost, it’s not as much as you may think nor will any parent tell you to skimp on protecting their child (in our case, we had already paid for it ourselves). 

3. It’s just volunteers, compliance concerns (disclosures, consumer copies, etc.) don't matter.

Compliance always matters. While the risk may be lower, there's always someone looking for a quick payday and most non-profits aren't financial able to avoid bankruptcy & disolution. Had something happened to one of the kids the local and national levels of the league could be held liable (see Doe vs. US Youth Soccer). Not to mention, there's probably an attorney willing to argue the local president's actions were reckless and caused harm, thus exposing him to liability as well. 

4. We checked Megan's Law. 

The Megan's Law site is a great resource but like any database has its flaws. It also only addresses registered sex offenders and as a parent I'm concerned about a lot more than that. Violence, drugs, and other poor decision-making scenarios should be reviewed as potentially disqualifying events. 

5. We've never had a problem. 

Do I really need to respond to this one? 

So, moral of the story?

Parents - Get involved, ask questions, confirm your assumptions and never waiver on your expectation of safety for your kid. If you'd like some insight on background screening or pointers on how to question the league w/o ruffling feathers then click the button below to schedule a quick chat. 

Leaders - Be cognizant of the true priorities, don't overstretch yourself and choose to work with companies that truly support you. If you're overwhelmed by the process then something is wrong... and we can help. If you're interested in a second opinion and/or reassurance that you're doing enough, we're happy to review your program as well. Just click the button below to schedule a time to talk. 

How are you doing with the stay-at-home order? 

Struggling? I think we all are. Everything has changed and no one knows what tomorrow holds... yet as adults, experience tells us that we will make it through and this too shall pass. 

Now think about the young adults, teenagers and kids who are experiencing everything we are yet have no past experiences to reference. The Great Recession is a distant memory to most, if they even remember it. Even before covid our nation's youth showed  increasing rates of anxiety, now they're facing the same feelings of uncertainty but with no life or work experience to fall back on. 

I urge you to reach out to your local (or alma mater) schools/colleges, share your insight and give them hope. A big Thank You to Angela Tilley-Ruiz at Cuymaca College for this opportunity.