Come New Year's Day, employers in San Francisco and the rest of California will need to be in compliance with two new laws that will change the way they conduct background checks beginning on January 1, 2012: California Assembly Bill 22 (CA AB 22), which relates the use of credit report checks of job applicants and current employees for employment purposes, and California Senate Bill 909 (CA SB 909), which relates to the “offshoring” of the Personally Identifiable Information (PII) of consumers who are the subjects of background checks.
In October of 2011, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law California Assembly Bill 22 which prohibits most employers and prospective employers in the state – with the exception of certain financial institutions – from obtaining consumer credit reports for employment purposes.
Introduced by Assembly member Tony Mendoza (D-56th District), AB 22 amends Section 1785.20.5 of the Civil Code and adds Chapter 3.6 (commencing with Section 1024.5) to Part 2 of Division 2 of the Labor Code, relating to employment. AB 22 was Mendoza’s third attempt at legislation to limit or prohibit the use of consumer credit reports by employers for employment purposes. His previous efforts at similar legislation – Assembly Bill 943 in 2009 and Assembly Bill 482 in 2010 – were both vetoed by former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
- AB 22 prohibits employers or prospective employers from obtaining a consumer credit reports for employment purposes unless the position of the person for whom the report is sought is one of the following:
- A managerial position;
- A position in the state Department of Justice;
- A sworn peace officer or other law enforcement position;
- A position for which the information contained in the report is required by law to be disclosed or obtained;
- A position that involves regular access to specified personal information for any purpose other than the routine solicitation and processing of credit card applications in a retail establishment;
- A position in which the person is or would be a named signatory on the employer’s bank or credit card account, or authorized to transfer money or enter into financial contracts on the employer’s behalf;
- A position that involves access to confidential or proprietary information; or
- A position that involves regular access to $10,000 or more of cash.
In addition, AB 22 also requires the written notice informing the person for whom a consumer credit report is sought for employment purposes to also inform that person of the specific reason for obtaining the report.
With the passage of AB 22, California becomes the seventh and most recent U.S. state to pass a law limiting credit report checks for employment purposes. The seven U.S. states currently with laws restricting credit checks are: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Oregon, and Washington.
To read California Assembly Bill 22 (AB 22), click here.
In September of 2010, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law California Senate Bill 909, which appears to be the first law in the nation that addresses the issue of Personally Identifiable Information of consumers collected during background checks for employment purposes – including names, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers – being sent “offshore” and outside the United States or its territories beyond the protection of U.S. privacy laws.
Authored by State Senator Rod Wright (D – Inglewood), SB 909 amends the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRA) that regulates background checks in California. SB 909 adds language to Civil Code 1786.16 that requires that a consumer must be notified as part of a disclosure before the background check of the web address where that consumer “may find information about the investigative consumer reporting agency’s (CRA) privacy practices, including whether the consumer’s personal information will be sent outside the United States or its territories.” If a background screening firm does not have a web site, then the background screening firm must provide the consumer with a phone number where the consumer can obtain the same information.
In addition, SB 909 requires an investigative CRA to “conspicuously post” on its primary Internet Web site information describing its privacy practices with respect to its preparation and processing of investigative consumer reports. If CRA does not have an Internet Web site, CRA has to mail a written copy of the privacy statement to consumers upon request.
The CRA’s privacy policy must contain “information describing its privacy practices with respect to its preparation and processing of investigative consumer reports.” Specifically, background screening firms in California (and firms that do business in California) must have a statement in their privacy policy entitled “Personal Information Disclosure: United States or Overseas” that indicates whether the personal information will be transferred to third parties outside the United States or its territories. SB 909 defines “third parties” as including, but not being limited to:
- A contractor,
- Foreign affiliate,
- Wholly owned entity, or
- An employee of the investigative consumer reporting agency.
In addition, SB 909 requires a “separate section” that includes the name, mailing address, e-mail address, and telephone number of the investigative consumer reporting agency representatives who can assist a consumer with additional information regarding the investigative consumer reporting agency’s privacy practices or policies in the event of a compromise of his or her information.
In the event a consumer is harmed by virtue of a background screening firm negligently preparing or processing data outside of the U.S., SB 909 provides for damages to the consumer in an amount equal to the sum of:
- Any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the unauthorized access, and
- The costs of the successful legal action together with reasonable attorney’s fees, as determined by the court.
To read California Senate Bill 909 (SB 909), click here.
Comments