Human trafficking runs rampant in the United States and has severely changed the lives of innumerable victims, survivors, and families. While many are conscious of the physical, emotional, mental, and sexual abuse those who are trafficked face, financial abuse is most times disregarded, though it is a recurring tactic used by traffickers to further exploit victims.  

Debt bondage takes place when people are compelled to provide labor to pay off a debt. Human traffickers execute this by engaging in harmful behaviors that greatly affect the victims’ financial statuses to the point they are unable to get a job, rent a home, or anything else to diminish their reliance on the abuser. It is suspected that traffickers exert financial abuse not only to earn money but to maintain a method of control. Dr. Marian Hatcher, cofounder of ALIVE (Alliance of Leadership & Innovation for Victims of Exploitation) stated in a testimony to the court, “In addition to exploiting their victims through commercial sex or forced labor, traffickers- particularly in the context of domestic trafficking- may also exploit their victims’ credit histories by using their social security numbers to take out loans and make large purchases, such as vehicles, intending not to pay, thereby destroying their victims’ credit histories in the process.”

A former employee filed a class action against Cardinal Logistics Management in early July, claiming the alleged acquisition of background reports for employment matters were lacking proper disclosures and written authorization (ClassAction.org).

The lawsuit seeks to include current, former, and prospective employees who applied for a job and had a background check performed for the company within the last five years before the complaint was presented, until a date that is to be determined.

The FCRA requires that employers provide a “clear and conspicuous” disclosure prior to procuring an employee’s consumer report as well as the individual’s authorization. The lawsuit specifies ways in which Cardinal allegedly breached the FCRA:                     

• Concealing the disclosure in small font within a document with extra information
• Did not get written authorization before running the background check
•   Incorporating a liability waiver in the same document as the disclosure
•  Inserting a misleading authorization for third parties to disclose consumer information to Cardinal that is different from the consumer report authorization
• Depriving subjects of its background checks of a summary of their rights under the FCRA. 

It is a hot summer day and your air conditioner just broke. You call an HVAC service provider, and they send a technician out to your home to fix it.

Do you prefer to be home at the time to supervise the person or do you let them do their own thing and let you know when they’re done?

If they steal something or another criminal act occurs, who would you hold responsible—the individual or the company?

Customers have grown to trust company norms; Assuming, a business would not allow an employee who is deemed unsafe to enter their home. Homeowners are not in the position to vet technicians themselves which suggests the company has the responsibility to protect their customers by extensively assessing them and their backgrounds.

A Dallas, Texas family was confronted by this issue in 2019 when Betty Jo McClain Thomas was robbed and stabbed to death by James Lee Holden, Jr., who was supposed to be doing her service. A technician who was contracted by Spectrum TV (Charter Communications) to help Thomas with a problem with her television. He returned the next day using the company van even though he was off duty. He took advantage of the trust communities have for service technicians utilizing company materials to lure his way back into Thomas’ home and kill the 83-year-old woman.

After being sued by her family, Charter Communications was charged $340 million dollars for their careless involvement in such a tragic situation. The jury decided that the cable company holds substantial liability to ensure the welfare of its customers in the presence of its employees.

Information disclosed during the trial presents ways in which Holden could have been prevented from being in a situation to invade Thomas’ home and commit murder. Charter Communications admitted their failure to verify his past employment and learned that if they did, they would’ve found out that he lied about his preceding work history. He forged paperwork at his previous job, falsified documents, and harassed coworkers at his prior place of employment. He also had up to 4 complaints from customers regarding his behavior. Despite all this readily available information, Charter failed at obtaining it, relaying it, and deciding, therefore, being rendered careless and irresponsible.

While this lawsuit does not suggest that employers are solely responsible for all employee behavior, it does mean that if background screening is not carried out thoroughly the business can be deemed negligent. 

A pending, class-action lawsuit has resulted in a $350,000 settlement to resolve alleged violations of the FCRA. Though Onin Staffing denies these claims and does not admit fault, they agreed to a compromise that will grant each class member approximately $483. The class consists of all candidates and employees of Onin Staffing who were affected by the company’s alleged improper hiring and firing practices between April 4, 2017, and March 23, 2022.

The plaintiffs in Bobby Lee Miles, Jr. V. Onin Staffing, LLC, were not given copies of their background reports nor were they notified of the background screening being done. They were also subject to the denial of employment and wrongful dismissal, reassignment, and firing without the proper, FCRA-compliant background report processes being carried out.

The FCRA requires employers to provide applicants and employees with copies of their background reports, and a guide on how to dispute misinformation before it leads to adverse action.

The deadline to submit a claim for compensation or to be excluded is August 29, 2022. The final hearing is set for December 16, 2022. 

Last December, the New York City mayor and city council made a last-minute attempt to address housing discrimination by venturing to pass a controversial bill. Proposed Int. No. 2047-A would interfere with landlords’ ability to run criminal background checks on prospective tenants. The bill is estimated to affect over a million renters in NYC.  

Landlord groups responded in outrage, protesting the substantial number of tenants’ safety at risk by being prohibited from checking the criminal histories of potential tenants before inviting them into their buildings.

Though the bill is meant to combat housing discrimination, the president of the Rent Stabilization Association, Joseph Strasburg, expresses concern and runs down a list of crimes that are among those that would go unchecked by landlords should this bill be passed, “Murder, assault, battery, drug dealing, gun-running, sex crimes.” Those who oppose the bill are most apprehensive about living amongst people with these types of backgrounds going unchecked.  

A sponsor of the bill, Councilman Stephen Levin defends, “Safe and stable housing is a right every New Yorker deserves, yet conviction records continue to be used to punish and discriminate against people long after they have left the criminal legal system. Removing restrictive barriers would increase access to housing for hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers and make it possible for people to restart their lives.” Without having to pass a background screening, many applicants who would otherwise be turned away could have a chance at having a fixed place to live, therefore less opportunity to re-offend. 

Spokesman Mitch Schwartz asserts, “Stable housing reduces recidivism. Discriminatory housing practices make it worse. Keeping our city safe means changing the way we think about housing equity—not repeating the same mistakes that leave people behind.” 

A Florida-based marijuana dispensary has agreed to settle alleged class action violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act by paying a $60,500 settlement. 

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) was passed in 1970 to protect potential and existing employees from adverse employment decisions, specifically due to information in their background checks. This law encourages the validity and fairness of consumer information relayed by consumer reporting agencies. Under the FCRA, employers are required to follow specific protocols if they use background checks as a part of their employment process and if an applicant does not get hired because of details of a background screening. The suit alleged the employer was negligent in their adherence to this law, leading to this class-action suit, set to have its final approval hearing on August 18, 2022.

As reported by Top Class Actions, approximately 1,000 applicants and employees failed to receive a notice, summary, or copy of their background report after it was used against them regarding employment, making them eligible for a settlement from the lawsuit. Though the company did not admit wrongdoing, they have agreed to pay to resolve the claims.

Background Partners is a trusted employee screening resource to leading employers within the cannabis industry. Our electronic invite process ensures candidates e-sign/acknowledge receipt of employer approved authorization forms, disclosures, notices and more. Contact (866) 880-0702 or Support@BackgroundPartners.com to have a no pressure conversation with an expert Screening Consultant and see first-hand why over 80% of our clients are referrals.

Background Partners does not offer or provide legal advice of any kind. Any information on this website is educational information only.