E-Verify to Purge 10-Year-Old Records by Jan. 1, 2016

e-verify_banner_720_x_92_version_1.fw  

According to a recent article by Roy Maurer, an online editor/manager for SHRM:  As of Jan. 1, 2016, employers won’t have access to E-Verify records that were created on or before Dec. 31, 2005.

 

The E-Verify electronic employment eligibility verification system will delete data more than 10 years old on an annual basis, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced in 2014.

 

For example, on Jan. 1, 2017, USCIS will dispose of records created on or prior to Dec. 31, 2006, and this process will continue in subsequent years.

 

The data purge is being conducted to comply with the National Archives and Records Administration’s retention and disposal schedule to minimize security and privacy risks associated with retention of personally identifiable information.

 

“Employers that have been participating in the program since Dec. 31, 2005, should take measures to archive their data,” said Kevin Lashus, managing shareholder of the Austin, Texas, office of Jackson Lewis and co-vice president of law and legislative advocacy for the Society for Human Resource Management Austin Chapter.

 

USCIS has created a Historic Records Report that users can download and save for archival purposes. However, this report will only be available until Dec. 31, 2015, so users should download the report before then.

 

USCIS recommends that employers annotate Forms I-9 with the E-Verify case verification number and retain the Historic Records Report with the corresponding forms. The agency itself will retain E-Verify records associated with any current ongoing investigations, and employers should prepare for the possibility of an audit, Lashus said.

 

However, an employer that must undergo an I-9 audit or that finds itself under investigation in the future “can claim as an affirmative defense that it successfully received a ‘work authorized’ result for a new hire who is now identified as unauthorized. Once USCIS has disposed of the E-Verify records, the employer has only its own archives to support its defense,” Lashus said.

 

Employers should consider seeking guidance from counsel on downloading the Historic Records Report from E-Verify and plan on doing so at the end of each calendar year, he said.

 

EU Privacy Law Update

On December 15th, European Union (EU) officials reached an agreement on an EU-wide data privacy law that will supplant the existing 28 national laws. After nearly four years of negotiations and lobbying, the text of the proposed law has been finalized and will take effect two years after it is formally adopted by the European Parliament and EU governments. According to Vera Jourova, the EU Commissioner for Justice, Consumers, and Gender Equality, “Citizens and businesses will profit from clear rules that are fit for the digital age, that give strong protection and at the same time create opportunities and encourage innovation in a European Digital Single Market.”

One of the most notable provisions of the law will subject multinational companies to fines of up to 4 percent of their annual global revenue for violations. According to The Wall Street Journal, the law will “tightly restrict how analytics and advertising companies can re-use data harvested from individuals, for example after they purchased a product or signed up for a service.”

While the agreement has been praised by privacy advocates as a model for the rest of the world, technology executives have expressed concern that the law will stifle innovation and burden their business operations in Europe.

On the other hand, EU officials maintain that the new law will give companies “legal certainty by creating one common data protection standard.”

  

http://www.wsj.com/articles/eu-officials-reach-agreement-on-text-of-new-privacy-law-1450209502

Philadelphia Strengthens its Ban the Box Law

bantheboxMayor Michael Nutter signed an amendment to Philadelphia’s 2012 Ban the Box law that limits employers – both public and private – from inquiring about job applicants’ criminal backgrounds. The original legislation specifies that job applicants do not have to disclose criminal history information until after the first interview. The legislation is now bolstered by additional provisions that permit prospective employers to conduct criminal background checks on applicants only after a job offer has been made

Here are several changes to the original law:

  • Employers can only conduct criminal background checks after conditional offers of employment, not after the first interview like in the original law.
  • It applies to all employers in the city — public and private — with one or more employees, as opposed to 10 workers in the original law
  • Employers can only look back on the last seven years of applicants’ records, excluding any periods of incarceration. Previously, employers could look back as far as they chose on a candidate’s criminal record.
  • Employers must consider guidelines when determining whether to disqualify an applicant on the basis of his or her criminal record.
  • Employers must notify the applicant in writing if they are rejected and provide the applicant with a copy of the criminal history report. Applicants have 10 business days following the rejection to provide evidence of an inaccuracy on the report or to provide an explanation.
  • Applicants have 300 calendar days to file a complaint with the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations.

Mayor Nutter said in a statement that by making employers wait until a job offer has been extended before any criminal background check is done, returning citizens will have a better chance of securing employment. 

“I believe that the city should lead by example in our policy on hiring returning citizens. Government can’t ask businesses to do something that it isn’t willing to do,” Nutter said. “Hiring returning citizens is good for the economy and good for the people who gain jobs by government reducing barriers to employment. We can support returning citizens and add qualified workers to government positions.”  

Stay informed!  Click here to view CARCO’s Ban the Box chart.

 

Johnson & Johnson and Kelly Services Hit With Class Suit for FCRA Violations

J&J LogoKelly Services logoJohnson & Johnson (J&J) and Kelly Services have been hit with a class action accusing them of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).  The lawsuit asserts that the defendants rescinded the applicant’s job offer based on a criminal conviction found in his consumer report, which the defendants had accessed without properly disclosing the report’s employment purposes.

 

In his lawsuit, Plaintiff T. Jason Noye alleges that J&J and recruiter Kelly Services violated the FCRA by procuring and using consumer reports for employment purposes without first disclosing in writing to the consumer, “in a document that consists solely of the disclosure,” what the reports will be obtained and used for.  Noye asserts that the disclosure form he signed from Kelly Services did not include a “clear and conspicuous” standalone disclosure that the consumer report may be used for employment purposes, as required by the FCRA.

 

Noye claims that he applied for a position as an “operations supervisor” with J&J through Kelly Services in February and was formally offered the job in writing, which he immediately accepted. Noye then signed a disclosure form from Kelly Services believed to be used to obtain his background report, via a pre employment background screening, the complaint states.

 

Noye acknowledged on the disclosure form that he had been convicted of a crime and was informed by Kelly Services that although the company needed more information, he was not necessarily barred from employment.  He later cleared Kelly’s screening process and learned that J&J had its own process, which he did not pass for employment.

 

Noye alleges that the criminal background report was inaccurate and misleading because it misreported certain summary offenses as misdemeanors and included three purported safety violations. Although he requested a letter explaining why the offer was rescinded, Noye never received one, nor did he receive a statement of his rights under the FCRA.

 

The suit seeks statutory and punitive damages as well as attorneys’ fees.

 

Noye v. Johnson & Johnson et al., case number 1:15-cv-02382

  

If you would like to ensure that your hiring process is FCRA compliant, contact CARCO Group at 866-557-5984 or click here for more information on how we keep our clients out of harm’s way.

 

 

Tips for Assessing a Background Screening Partner

Helpful TipA background screening partner should make your job (and your candidate’s job) easier! Make sure to partner with a screening company that provides:

  • Quality and actionable information;
  •  Systems, workflows and processes necessary to  maintain compliance with the ever-changing legal environment;
  • Custom and ad hoc reporting; and
  • Most importantly, a consultative partnership to help you achieve your goals.

For all of the above and more, contact CARCO today at 866-557-5984 or visit www.carcogroup.com.