Tips on Preparing Your Next Background Screening RFP

white-paper-icon-1  Preparing an RFP can be a daunting task. One of the most important issues is to do as much research and preparation up front in order to avoid mistakes that will hold up the process in the end.

Do your research– Do your research to ensure you are up to date on new processes and procedures in the background screening arena. Visit sites such as to read about industry trends and to understand the background screening industry.

Update your program– Now is the time to run an audit of your current processes and procedures. Know the types of background components you currently perform and those components that you would like to perform on each role in your organization. It is important to understand any new legislation that has passed and find out which background screening providers have been mired in litigation because of cutting corners. Quality is key when it comes to background screening.

Take a lead role in the RFP process– Don’t allow non-HR units run the entire RFP process. Knowing the level of quality you need and the cost associated with that quality is important when selecting a background screening provider. Remember, quality is key when it comes to background screening. Too many companies run the RFP process as a method to reduce cost when ignoring HOW background checks are performed is more important than the cost of the service. There are entities such as the FCRA and the EEOC that audit the background screening programs of companies to ensure compliant processes are in place. With this in mind, you should do business with a background screening partner that is NAPBS accredited and focuses on quality and compliance.

Create a stakeholder committee– Make sure the decision-making committee is made up of stakeholders from multiple areas of the company. Human Resource and Talent Acquisition leaders are a must but you should include hiring managers from different business units to ensure all needs are being addressed.

Ask for differentiators– Most background screening providers think they do something differently than their competitors. Ask what that differentiator is and make sure it aligns with your philosophy.

Review a sample RFP template– Why re-create the wheel? There are sources that provide templates for RFPs (we’ve attached one for you from and this is a great way to build the framework of your RFP.

Remember as you go through the RFP process that it is imperative to work with a quality background screening partner in order to keep your company out of harm’s way. Contact CARCO Group to see how we can help you improve your talent acquisition process (through our HR technology) and reduce risk.  1-866-557-5984 or click here.


Federal Bill Introduced to Ban Salary History Question

Employers would no longer be allowed to ask job applicants about their salary histories under a bill introduced in Congress Sept. 14. The bill by Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., is designed to even the playing field among men and women and minorities doing substantially the same work.

SHRM Online reported that a spokesperson from Norton’s office projected that the bill would be introduced in the House of Representatives this week. Congress referred the bill to its House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Under the Pay Equity for All Act of 2016 (H.R. 6030), the U.S. Department of Labor would be able to assess fines up to $10,000 against employers who violate the law by asking questions about an applicant’s salary history. Additionally, prospective or current employees would be able to bring a private lawsuit against an employer who violated the law and could receive up to $10,000 in damages plus attorney fees.

On a state level, Massachusetts just signed a pay equity law making it the first state to enact this type of legislation. New York and California have similar laws pending approval.

The bill is co-sponsored by Reps. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., and Jackie Speier, D-Calif.

CARCO Group, Inc. Receives Certification Under the EU-US Privacy Shield Framework

privacy-shield-logo-flagEffective September 13, 2016, CARCO Group, Inc. is a listed participant and is certified under the EU-US Privacy Shield Framework. This certification enables CARCO to effectuate transfers of personal data during the background screening process to the United States from the European Union while ensuring that EU data subjects continue to benefit from effective safeguards and protection as required by European legislation.

 “As a major provider of international employment screening and HR related services, it is imperative that the information flowing from the EU to the US be protected,” stated Bruce Berger, CARCO’s Chief Compliance Officer. Mr. Berger further stated, “It is imperative that the individual about whom the information relates is comfortable with the manner in which the information is handled and protected, and that there are established procedures in place for the individual to access, verify, dispute, and correct, if necessary, that information. CARCO is extremely concerned about the lives which can be impacted by information handling practices and strives to protect the individual in every possible way. We are extremely proud at our being one of the earliest adopters of the EU Privacy Shield Framework.”

The EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework was designed by the U.S. Department of Commerce and European Commission to provide companies on both sides of the Atlantic with a mechanism to comply with EU data protection requirements when transferring personal data from the European Union to the United States in support of transatlantic commerce. On July 12, 2016, the European Commission deemed the Privacy Shield Framework adequate to enable data transfers under EU law (see the adequacy determination).

To view CARCO’s EU US Privacy Shield Privacy Statement, click here.


Judge shoots down Johnson & Johnson and Kelly Services’ FCRA arbitration bid

J&J Logo   Kelly Services logo  On September 7th, a Pennsylvania federal judge declined Johnson & Johnson, Inc. and Kelly Services, Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration with a Plaintiff accusing them of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

Plaintiff T. Jason Noye alleges that JNJ rescinded his job offer after discovering a criminal record on his background report, despite never providing the Plaintiff with a copy of the report or his rights under the FCRA.

The Plaintiff also claims that the criminal record listed on the background report was incorrect, improperly listing four misdemeanors.

The Defendants argued that the Plaintiff signed an arbitration agreement when applying for the job through Kelly’s staffing service.

The judge rejected this argument, writing, “the Court finds that evidence submitted in response to Defendant’s motion is ‘not insubstantial’ and constitutes more than a ‘naked assertion’ that Plaintiff did not intend to be bound by the arbitration agreement.”

This lawsuit should never have happened. A major lesson here is that employers should be sure to use a background screening partner that will ensure compliance with the law. A quality background screening partner will also help with brand protection, candidate experience and saving their clients’ money by keeping them out of expensive lawsuits.

For tips on how to avoid litigation through proper due diligence when selecting a background screening partner, view CARCO’s White Paper: Selecting a Background Screening Company.



Noye v. Johnson & Johnson et al., case number 1:15-cv-02382, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

Current Form I-9 valid until Jan. 21, 2017

i-9-form-2  Employers should note that on Aug. 25, 2016, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved a revised Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification. The revised form must be published by Nov. 22, 2016.

However, employers may continue using the current version of Form I-9 with a revision date of 03/08/2013 N until Jan. 21, 2017, at which time all previous versions of Form I-9 will be invalid. In the meantime, USCIS is in the process of getting the new form changes implemented.

We will continue to monitor and report the latest news on the revised Form I-9.

For information on how CARCO’s electronic I-9/E-Verify solution will keep you compliant, click here.

Dish Network to pay $1.75M to settle class action for FCRA violations

dish_logo  On September 7th, Dish Network, LLC agreed to a $1.75 million settlement resolving allegations that the company violated the FCRA.

The Plaintiffs accused the company of soliciting background reports on technicians, hired as contractors, without providing disclosure forms. The Plaintiffs also accused the company of prohibiting “high-risk” technicians from working on certain Dish projects, without allowing technicians the opportunity to verify or correct information included in their background check reports.

The settlement will offer $480 to the 9,000 contractors that Dish labeled “high-risk” and offer $80 to the 38,000 contractors that Dish failed to provide disclosures to. The complaint accused Dish of being aware of its FCRA obligations but intentionally choosing to ignore disclosure requirements.

The suit was originally filed in 2012 and included Sterling Infosystems Inc., the background screening vendor that provided the reports.  Sterling paid $4.75 million in November 2015 to settle the claims against it.


Ernst v. Dish Network LLC et al., case number 1:12-cv-08794, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Class Action Lawsuit Says Petco Hid Credit Check Authorizations

petco-logo On August 29th, Plaintiffs accusing Petco of violating the  FCRA urged a California federal judge not to dismiss their proposed class action lawsuit. The Plaintiffs accuse Petco of conducting credit checks and other consumer reports on applicants and hiding its employment background check disclosure on a form that included other distracting language. The complaint argues that Petco’s hidden authorization language violates the FCRA.

The complaint alleges that instead of a “clear and conspicuous” and separate disclosure, Petco has a text box in the middle of its online application “which appears on a screen with small·font wording in the middle that the applicant scrolls through by dragging a scrollbar on the right hand side” called the Background Check Disclosure.

The class action states that if printed out, the disclosure would take up five pages, and  supposedly authorized Petco to conduct regular consumer reports of its applicants and employees. This disclosure does not meet federal requirements, the class action asserts.

In addition, the lawsuit claims that if an employer makes an “adverse decision” based on something in a credit report, they have to notify the consumer of that fact. The complaint alleges that Petco fails to do this.

Plaintiff Jacklyn Feist states that in October of 2015 she applied online to work at a Petco store, had two interviews, and was given a job. However, in the meantime Petco obtained a consumer report from Petco’s vendor which stated that she “did not meet company standards.”

Feist claims that when she reported for her first day of work, she was told there was a problem with her background check and she was not allowed to work. Feist asserts that she was never provided notice about the background check or the adverse decision from it, as required by the FRCA.

Plaintiff Angelica Zimmer says that she completed the online application for Petco in July of 2014, and worked for Petco from September 2014 to January of 2015. Zimmer claims that in August of 2014 Petco received a consumer report on her from its vendor without her knowledge.

Petco previously argued that the Plaintiffs lacked standing and failed to allege an actual violation of the FCRA. The Plaintiffs rejected Petco’s arguments, claiming that the company’s disclosure was over 30 paragraphs and consisted of “reams of extraneous information beyond the required consumer report disclosure.” The Plaintiffs also argued that, “It is self-evident that such a document does not consist ‘solely’ of the disclosure that a consumer report may be procured and thus violates the FCRA.” The Plaintiffs also argued that Petco’s attempts to dismiss the case for lack of standing only applied to one of the Plaintiffs, claiming that, “The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that where the standing of one Plaintiff is established, it is not necessary to inquire as to the standing of the other Plaintiffs.”


Feist et al. v. Petco Animal Supplies Inc. et al., case number 3:16-cv-01369 , in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California