It is important that you are aware of mistakes by your screening provider. You should meet with your screening provider and obtain a clear understanding of the procedures they follow in investigating and reporting results of criminal conviction searches. Ignorance is NOT bliss.
Recently, A New York federal judge on Friday granted final approval to a $4.75 million settlement between a Screening Provider a/k/a Consumer Reporting Agency (CRA) and a class of satellite television installers who alleged that the background checking company provided outdated information to their employer, leading to their losing work.
The CRA made a couple of mistakes as follows:
- The deal settles claims that the CRA violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by providing outdated information on the installers to the end user in reports it did not have a permissible reason to issue, according to the settlement signed by U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield.
- The deal also settles a claim that the CRA failed to provide the installers with copies of the reports after they requested them.
The settlement does not involve the end user, which continues to face various claims that it violated the FCRA, including by failing to obtain necessary permission to get the reports, by failing to make proper notifications before obtaining the reports and by failing to provide the workers with copies of the reports before taking adverse actions against them, according to the installers’ third amended complaint, filed in July.
The CRA, which compiled the reports for Dish, listed 20-year-old arrests, charges and citations that never led to criminal charges despite the FCRA preventing the inclusion of any adverse data other than conviction records that occurred more than seven years ago, according to the suit.
The case is Ernst et al. v. Dish Network LLC et al., Ernst versus Dish Network 0 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
In a previous post we highlight reasons why it is important to know how your consumer reporting agency is handling information reported to your applicants.
Many times we get questions about what types of crimes should be used to identify applicants as a high risk. We thought we would provide you the list that was used by this company. This information comes directly from the case
The company being sued established the criteria that triggered high risk labels. The items in the background report that resulted in a “high risk” rating in the Summary Report included:
Violent crimes — “Assault, Terroristic Threats, Stalking, Harassment”
Property crimes — “Identity theft, Theft of property, Forgery”
Sex crimes — “Rape, Child pornography, Indecent liberties with a minor, Voyeurism” and
“Sex offenders – registered or those who fail to register”
Drug crimes — “DUI – drug, Drug Trafficking/manufacture . . . Prescription fraud, Possession of controlled substance”
Alcohol-related crimes — “DUI – alcohol, Contribute to a minor, Drunk in public”
“Miscellaneous — Escape, Perjury, Conspiracy, Evading police officer, Espionage, Accessory . . . Disorderly Conduct, Breach of Peace”
“Habitual Criminal Offender” — Any three unrelated misdemeanor convictions
Vehicular violations – “DUI Misdemeanor; Fail to Stop and Render Aid/Hit and Run; Fleeing Police Officer; Reckless Driving; Manslaughter/ Felony/Homicide Involving a Vehicle; Racing; Speed Contest; Theft of Vehicle,” as well as having three or more “prehire” moving violations, including “Driver License Not in Possession; Failure to Use Signal ” etc.
“Ineligible” — “At Time of MVR [Motor Vehicle Record]: License Not Valid; License Currently Suspended, Expired; Provisional or Restricted License; Learner’s Permit