Stoel Rives: California Court Limits Defenses Available to Employers Requesting Employee Background Checks | Practical Law

Stoel Rives: California Court Limits Defenses Available to Employers Requesting Employee Background Checks | Practical Law

This Law Firm Publication by Stoel Rives LLP discusses Connor v. First Student Inc., in which the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District found that California employers conducting background checks may have to comply with both the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA), which governs reports concerning character information, and the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRAA), which governs consumer credit reports. The court concluded that the 2007 decision, Ortiz v. Lyon Management Group, Inc., was decided incorrectly, that the ICRAA is not unconstitutionally vague and that neither the ICRAA nor the CCRAA prohibits the application of both acts to reports that concern both character information and creditworthiness.

Stoel Rives: California Court Limits Defenses Available to Employers Requesting Employee Background Checks

by Stoel Rives LLP
Published on 17 Aug 2015 • California, United States
This Law Firm Publication by Stoel Rives LLP discusses Connor v. First Student Inc., in which the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District found that California employers conducting background checks may have to comply with both the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA), which governs reports concerning character information, and the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRAA), which governs consumer credit reports. The court concluded that the 2007 decision, Ortiz v. Lyon Management Group, Inc., was decided incorrectly, that the ICRAA is not unconstitutionally vague and that neither the ICRAA nor the CCRAA prohibits the application of both acts to reports that concern both character information and creditworthiness.
View PDF