Insights
Publications

Are You Background Checking Your Contractors? If So, Exercise Caution.

June 12, 2019 Articles

Employers who use background checks in their hiring processes are likely aware of the various requirements under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and analogous state statutes. They must provide clear disclosures and obtain a signed authorization from employees and applicants before they obtain any third-party consumer reports on the individuals. While these laws typically aim to protect the rights of employees and employee candidates, an open question remains whether employers should extend the precautions to non-employees they engage for service, such as independent contractors, volunteers, and board members. With the unsettled law and ever-present rise of independent contractors in the workforce, employers in California should consider applying their disclosure practice uniformly to all such individuals.

The plain language of the FCRA states that the protections only pertain to consumer reports obtained for “employment purposes.” However, applicable authorities have historically interpreted the statute liberally “to effectuate the broad remedial purpose of the Act.” See F.T.C., Advisory Opinion to Allison (1998). For example, in 1998 the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) advised that independent contractor truck drivers should be subject to the applicable provisions of the FCRA. It emphasized that because the operational entity was obtaining the background reports for hiring or consideration of hiring, this fell under the widely defined “employment purposes” under the statute. See also Hoke v. Retail Credit Corporation, 521 F.2d 1079, 1082 (4th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1087 (1976) (when information was given by a consumer reporting agency to the Texas Board of Medical Examiners to assess a physician’s application for a medical license, this was considered an “employment purpose”).

The FTC continues to maintain this position. Whenever consumer reports are used to evaluate whether or not to engage an individual for service, the FCRA is implicated. In a more recent overview by the FTC, the agency re-emphasized this fact:

Because the term "employment purposes" is interpreted liberally to effectuate the broad remedial purpose of the FCRA, it may apply to situations where an entity uses individuals who are not technically employees to perform duties. Thus, it includes a trucking company that obtains consumer reports on individual drivers who own and operate their own equipment; a title insurance company that obtains consumer reports on individuals with whom it frequently enters into contracts to sell its insurance, examine title, and close real property transactions; or a nonprofit organization staffed in whole or in part by volunteers.

40 Years of Experience with the Fair Credit Reporting Act, (FTC, July 2011), 32.

While this may seem unambiguous, district courts in Iowa, Ohio, and Wisconsin have questioned this reasoning and published opinions to the contrary. These courts turned to the common-law definition of employees to hold that the FCRA requirements did not apply to non-employees. See Smith v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company, 2018 WL 6921119, *4 (S.D. Iowa 2018); Johnson v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 152 F. Supp. 3d 1021, 1026-27 (N.D. Ohio 2015); Lamson v. EMS Energy Marketing Service, Inc., 868 F. Supp. 2d 804, 816 (E.D. Wis. 2012).

California courts, on the other hand, remain persuaded by the FTC’s guidance, and have expressly rejected the reasoning from the Wisconsin court in Lamson. In Prescott v. HireRight Solutions, Inc., the court found that the plain text of the FCRA did “not limit the pre-adverse action notice requirements to employers” and held that the provision applied to other entities. 2014 WL 12781292, *8 (C.D. Cal. 2014). On a similar note, the court in Dunford v. American DataBank, LLC declined to expressly follow Lamson, holding that the applicability of the FCRA protections remained an open question. 64 F. Supp. 3d 1378 (N.D. Cal. 2014).

Takeaway

As more and more companies in the gig economy opt to utilize independent contractors to perform services, California businesses should remain aware of these FCRA and analogous state law protections. While this issue has not yet been addressed on the appellate level, it is apparent that California courts are more inclined to extend FCRA provisions to non-employees. The California Civil Code has an identical definition for “consumers” and “employment purposes,” and the same logic will likely follow.

Background checks have become less expensive and more commonly used, but are not legally required. If they are used however, legal disclosure and authorization requirements must be followed. Out of an abundance of caution, employers should apply their disclosure and authorization practices uniformly to both employees and non-employees they are engaging for service.

Firm Highlights

Publication

Is your company covered by California's new privacy law?

Privacy image
Read More
Publication

Coronavirus and Employee Privacy Laws: What Employers Should Know

The outbreak of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) presents challenging medical privacy issues for employers. Employers must observe their employees’ continued legal right to privacy—including under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), HIPAA, and/or relevant...

Read More
Publication

Coronavirus and the Workplace: Is Your Business Prepared?

The outbreak of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) implicates numerous legal obligations for employers, including leave, medical privacy, and discrimination. Employers should prepare to implement policies that strike a balance between ensuring safety and fostering...

Read More
Publication

California's AB5 Codifies Stricter Rules for Independent Contractors - What Wine Industry Employers Need to Know

California Governor Gavin Newsom has signed into law AB5, codifying a new test for distinguishing employees from independent contractors. While AB5 does not go into effect until January 1, 2020, it will apply retroactively...

Read More
Publication

California’s New Ban on Mandatory Employment Arbitration: How We Got Here and What This Means

All employers should be aware that their use of mandatory employment arbitration agreements is prohibited in California effective January 1, 2020 under recently signed Assembly Bill No. 51 (AB 51). Under current California law...

Read More
Publication

California Employers Granted a One-Year Reprieve on New Mandatory Sexual Harassment Training Deadline

If you are scrambling to comply with the new California sexual harassment training requirements, we have some good news: with some exceptions, employers have another year to put those plans in place. Under prior law...

Read More
Event

Advising Businesses and Practicing Law During COVID-19

Rebecca Stephens is speaking on employment law issues on the Barristers Club of The Bar Association of San Francisco live webinar, "Advising Businesses and Practicing Law During COVID-19." Details: A comprehensive, one-stop shop CLE on the...

Read More
Publication

Weed at Work: Understanding Legalized Marijuana in the Office

Click here  for the audio recording of the webinar "Weed at Work: Understanding Legalized Marijuana in the Office."

Read More
Publication

New Laws for California Employers in 2020

The California Legislature and Governor Newsom have passed a sizable list of new laws governing the workplace in 2020. Employers are, once again, advised to evaluate their workplace rules and practices to insure they keep...

Read More
Publication

Coronavirus and the Workplace: Key Legal Updates for Employers

With the spread of COVID-19 and the rapidly evolving federal, state, and local government response, it can be difficult for employers to keep up with their rights and obligations. This week, California’s Governor Gavin...

Read More