In the weeks and months since it changed its name from the Department of Fair Employment and Housing to the California Civil Rights Department (“CRD”), the agency has been busy.  Most recently, the CRD released proposed modifications to the regulations under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) related to the use and consideration of criminal history information in employment decisions—a process that is already

We invite you to review our newly-posted March 2019 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:

Gilberg v. California Check Cashing Stores, LLC, 913 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2019)

While applying for employment with CheckSmart Financial, LLC, Desiree Gilberg signed a “Disclosure Regarding Background Investigation,” which resulted in Gilberg’s filing a putative class action against CheckSmart, claiming it had violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (“ICRAA”). The district court

We invite you to review our newly-posted September 2018 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:

Connor v. First Student, Inc., 2018 WL 3966434 (Cal. S. Ct. 2018)

Eileen Connor worked as a school bus driver for Laidlaw Education Services, a company that was later acquired by First Student.  First Student retained a consumer reporting agency to conduct background checks on its employees.  The background reports elicited information about the employees, including their criminal records, sex offender registry status,

In the past, a California employer could freely inquire about and consider a job applicant’s history of criminal convictions in determining any condition of employment including hiring, promotion, or termination. Although California law prohibited employers from asking about or considering arrests or detentions that did not result in convictions, the law did not impose any restrictions regarding what types of convictions employers could ask about

NASA v. Nelson, 562 U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 746 (2011)

Twenty-eight contract employees of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (“JPL”), which is owned by NASA but operated by Cal Tech, had never been subjected to a government background investigation. In 2004, a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission prompted the President to order new, uniform identification standards for federal employees, including contractor employees. The Department of

Mendoza v. ADP Screening & Selection Servs., Inc., 182 Cal. App. 4th 1644 (2010)

William Mendoza sued ADP Screening and Selection Services, Inc. (“SASS”) for violations of Penal Code §§ 290.4 and 290.46, the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act and declaratory relief based upon SASS’s apparent disclosure to a prospective employer of information uncovered during a background check conducted on Mendoza, indicating his status

Flores v. Autozone West, Inc., 161 Cal. App. 4th 373 (2008)

Juan Rodriguez Flores was injured by Erwin Gomez, an Autozone employee, when Gomez struck Flores on the head with a steel pipe. Flores sued Autozone for assault and battery based on a respondeat superior theory and for negligent hiring and related torts. The trial court granted Autozone’s motion for summary judgment, but the

Nelson v. NASA, 512 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2008)

NASA began requiring plaintiffs (long-time, “low-risk” contract employees of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory) to undergo a National Agency Check with Inquiries (“NACI”), which includes, among other things, a request for background information, the names of three references and disclosure of any illegal drug use within the past year, along with any treatment or counseling received