A hotel brand management company and consumer reporting agency (CRA) have reached a settlement agreement in a class action lawsuit. This agreement addressed how the two companies violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) when supplying and using background checks for employment. The settlement amounts to over $630,000 and will resolve claims by those subjected to consumer reports by the two companies during the claim period.

The Suit

The complaint against the companies revealed that the company violated the FCRA when requesting and using the CRA’s furnished consumer reports. For example, the employer failed to provide potential job candidates with a clear and conspicuous disclosure and written authorization before attempting to procure a consumer report. The company also allegedly failed to provide copies of any report and other required information before taking adverse employment-related actions based on the report.

Against the CRA, the class action makes similar complaints. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3)(A)(i) -(ii), agencies must provide certain information before taking adverse action based on the contents of a consumer report. The complaint argued how the FCRA states, “in using a consumer report for employment purposes, before taking any adverse action based in whole or in part on the report, the person intending to take such adverse action shall provide to the consumer to whom the report relates . . . a copy of the report[.]”

As such, the suit claimed that the CRA failed to obtain suitable certification from the employer, written authorization, and, when applicable, a pre-adverse action notice. Under the FCRA, CRAs may furnish a consumer report for employment purposes only if the person requesting it certifies that it has complied with paragraph (2) and, when applicable, paragraph (3).

Clarifications

These paragraphs require those using consumer reports to provide suitable disclosure and written authorization for employment purposes. This step is necessary before receiving the report and before taking adverse action due to the information found in it. Allegedly, the CRA provided thousands of consumer reports for the employer without certifying FCRA compliance with the mentioned paragraphs.

In this settlement agreement, both companies maintained that they were innocent of the suit’s allegations. However, they agreed to pay $630,000 into a fund to distribute to eligible individuals.

According to the settlement, impacted individuals can receive a check worth up to $100; members of a subclass of the company could receive up to $200. The case automatically benefits all class members, though anyone may opt-out by May 20, 2024.

Disclaimer:

Information provided here is for educational and informational purposes only and should not constitute as legal advice. We recommend you contact your own legal counsel for any questions regarding your specific practices and compliance with applicable laws.

Source

The post FCRA Lawsuit Involving CRA and Company Settled for $630,000 appeared first on JDP.

Minnesota officials plan to provide thousands of individuals with expungement relief in the coming months. According to the legislation that passed in 2023, these expungements would cover low-level marijuana convictions.

The Minnesota Legislature passed the Adult-Use Cannabis Act and the Clean Slate Act in 2023. The state’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension has worked on this plan since then. According to the Bureau, they have worked on determining which marijuana records qualify for the legislation’s automatic expungement process. 

The Bureau estimated that 66,000 records for misdemeanor cannabis-related convictions would qualify for automatic expungement. Officials estimated the state could carry out these expungements by August, possibly as early as May. Under the Adult-Use Cannabis Act and the Clean Slate Act, the state would regulate the cannabis market and provide relief to those previously convicted for cannabis-related violations. 

Under these Acts, adults may purchase, possess, and home-cultivate marijuana within certain limits. The law also created a system for the automatic review and expungement of certain non-violent marijuana-related violations. These changes may help improve housing and employment opportunities for individuals with these convictions.

Minnesota created a Cannabis Expungement Board to facilitate these changes. The board reviews these records on a case-by-case basis to determine eligibility for expungement. According to state officials, they have identified over 200,000 felony drug cases that could qualify. Despite this number, not all will be cannabis related.

The Cannabis Expungement Board is still reviewing these cases to determine which are definitively eligible. Under the law, the Board reviews records that do not involve threats, violence, or the use of weapons and disqualifies records that do. Reviewing these cases is expected to be a significant undertaking. As a result, the board intends to employ at least 30 legal professionals dedicated to examining cases to determine eligibility.

Expunging the qualified low-level marijuana convictions would prevent the public from seeing these cases. As such, these records would not appear in background checks for employment or housing. However, the Bureau of Criminal Apprehensions issued a warning for interested parties. The Bureau explained that they cannot notify consumers about their expunged records.

Consumers with eligible convictions can check the courthouse and inquire about the expungement process. Otherwise, individuals can use a public terminal to search for their cases. Those with qualified records should consider running a self-background check. A self-check allows consumers to review the information that employers, landlords, and others see on their reports. Reviewing these records also enables them to make corrections, especially if expunged information still appears on the report.

Background checks don’t have to be complicated. Try running a self background check today and give yourself a head start.

Source

The post Minnesota To Expunge 66,000 Marijuana Convictions As Soon As Next Month appeared first on JDP.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has released data indicating that consumers reported losing over $10 billion to fraud in 2023. According to the FTC, consumers lost 14% more in 2023 than in 2022, becoming the highest amount lost to fraud thus far. The FTC revealed investment scams saw the most losses at over $4.6 billion for 2023. This loss is 21% more than 2022’s investment scam losses.

Imposter scams resulted in the second largest losses, with individuals losing $2.7 billion. Fraud also proved a significant problem, especially with online shopping, sweepstakes, and job opportunity scams. Due to the many complaints, the FTC has taken several steps in discovering and stopping consumer fraud.

One significant effort the FTC made involved joining with over 100 federal and state law enforcement partners nationwide. This partnership intends to reduce the number of illegal telemarketing calls through Operation Stop Scam Calls, involving over 180 actions that target operations responsible for many of the calls to consumers in the United States.

The FTC also proposed a ban on imposter fraud. The Commission is in the final stages of the rulemaking process, targeting government and business impersonation scams. The FTC also brought several cases against business and investment opportunity schemes. Additionally, the FTC has listened to consumers concerning new forms of fraud in hopes of developing tools to fight them.

The FTC also has a Consumer Sentinel Network database. It uses this database to receive reports from consumers, the Better Business Bureau, industry members, non-profit organizations, and law enforcement agencies. The reports include fraud, identity theft, and complaints concerning other consumer issues. The Commission uses the reports for many of its own law enforcement investigations and shares them with law enforcement professionals. 

Although the FTC is trying to protect consumers from fraud, consumers should also take steps to protect themselves. Some steps consumers can take include the following:

• Protect your personal information, including your Social Security number and account numbers;
• Use strong passwords;
• Only open emails from people you know;
• Monitor your bank statements and credit card statements

These are just a few steps consumers can take to protect themselves. However, consumers must understand that they can become victims without realizing anything went wrong. Anyone suspicious of identity theft or other issues should report their concerns to law enforcement. They should also inform the FTC at IdentityTheft.gov. Another step consumers can take is running a self-background check. Self-checks help consumers find errors in their reports, discover new accounts opened in their name, and identify other fraudulent cases that can harm a person’s reputation.

Click here to run a self background check

Source

The post FTC Reports 2023 Consumers Monetary Losses to Fraud appeared first on JDP.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) recently announced its settlement agreement with a private security services provider. This agreement addressed allegations of the provider discriminating against non-U.S. citizens. 

According to the case, the company violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) when verifying employees’ ability to work in the U.S. via the employment eligibility verification (Form I-9) process. As a result of this case, Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division made the following statement concerning the I-9 process:

“Employers cannot restrict the types of documents workers can use to prove their permission to work. The department continues to ensure that all workers, regardless of citizenship, immigration status or national origin, are allowed to present valid documents of their choice to prove their permission to work.”

The DOJ began its investigation in response to a complaint by a lawful permanent resident. The complaint alleged that the employer had required the worker to present a Permanent Resident Card to complete the Form I-9. Further investigation found reasonable cause to believe that one of the employer’s locations in Concord and Fremont, California, engaged in a pattern of unfair documentary practices against lawful permanent residents. This timeframe spanned from Feb. 3, 2020, to Dec. 20, 2021. The DOJ’s investigation further determined that the employer made similar demands for other noncitizens when verifying work authorization.

Under the INA, employers must permit workers to present any combination of facially valid documentation they choose to meet the I-9 identity and work authorization requirements. This practice disregards the employee’s national origin, citizenship, or immigration status. As such, employees may choose any document from List A or any combination of documents from List B or List C to prove their identity and work authorization. 

This practice also means employers must accept the submitted paperwork as long as it appears genuine. In many cases, non-U.S. citizens may possess documentation similar to U.S. citizens. This case included examples of such documents, including unrestricted Social Security Cards and state ID cards.

Under the settlement, the employer will pay $100,000 in civil penalties to the U.S. government. They must also create a back pay fund of $75,000 in compensation for those allegedly affected by the employer’s actions. Furthermore, the employer must provide its personnel with training on the requirements of the INA, review its policies to ensure compliance and accept additional monitoring by the DOJ.

Disclaimer:

Information provided here is for educational and informational purposes only and should not constitute as legal advice. We recommend you contact your own legal counsel for any questions regarding your specific practices and compliance with applicable laws.

Source

The post DOJ Settles I-9 Case With Security Service Provider appeared first on JDP.

A series of bills concerning old marijuana convictions recently reached Maine legislators. These proposals intend to address the record-sealing process for marijuana convictions, as marijuana is legal in the state. According to the bills, they would expand the list of qualifying convictions, possibly creating an automatic sealing process.

In 2017, Maine legalized the recreational use of marijuana. Despite this, convictions for possessing or using marijuana before legalization have remained on individuals’ records. These remaining records created significant hardships for those seeking employment or housing. 

Advocates for decriminalizing marijuana also argued that minorities such as Black and Hispanic individuals faced disproportionate impacts from these records. According to advocates, law enforcement often targeted minority communities under previous drug laws. This issue further spurred the Maine legislature to receive several proposals to seal these records from the public.

One proposal is LD 2269. It would address marijuana-related convictions from January 1, 2001, through January 30, 2017. LD 2269 would automatically seal or mark these records as confidential. The bill would include convictions for possessing marijuana and several related crimes. Furthermore, LD 2269 would task the Department of Public Safety, the Bureau of State Police, and the State Bureau of Investigation with monthly reviews. 

They must search their databases for underlying convictions qualifying for automatic sealing. They must transfer information on qualifying records to the Administrative Office of the Courts. This office would then send all relevant information to the Superior or District Court as appropriate. The court will then determine the convictions’ eligibility for automatic sealing. 

The court will notify the State Bureau of Identification for offenses that do not qualify. The State Bureau of Identification must file the notice alongside the criminal record. If an offense qualifies, the court will inform the State Bureau of Identification to keep the records confidential.

Another bill submitted to Maine’s legislature is LD 2236. This bill would update the definition of “eligible criminal conviction.” According to LD 2236, the definition would include any Class D crime related to the unlawful possession or cultivation of marijuana before January 30, 2017. The bill would allow affected individuals to file a post-judgment motion to seal their eligible criminal history.

Another bill under consideration is LD 2218. It would eliminate age limitations for those seeking to seal their offenses. Currently, post-judgment motions could apply only to individuals between 18 and 28 years old at the time of the crime. As such, LD 2218 intends to eliminate this statutory prerequisite.

Disclaimer:

Information provided here is for educational and informational purposes only and should not constitute as legal advice. We recommend you contact your own legal counsel for any questions regarding your specific practices and compliance with applicable laws.

Source

The post Marijuana Convictions Could See Expungement Expansions in Maine appeared first on JDP.

Missouri’s circuit courts have been busy processing expungements to comply with the 2022 constitutional amendment. The constitutional amendment created a June 8 deadline for expunging misdemeanors and December 8 for felonies. The state’s courts have successfully cleared over 100,000 marijuana-related charges from residents’ criminal records. However, court officials have discussed requesting additional funding to complete these expungements.

The court officials commented on their challenges when determining how many marijuana records they still need to expunge. According to the officials, many records are not in digital format. As a result, they confirmed that they had to physically sort and review the physical documents to determine which records qualify for expungements.

The state began the expungement process by identifying which digital records qualify. After determining the appropriate information, they sent it to the circuit courts for expunging. This process allowed the courts to expunge 103,558 by January 2, 2024. However, many court officials believe they need more funding to continue. This funding would help them complete the detailed work required to complete the expungements under Amendment 3.

Court officials intend to request an additional $3.7 million for the upcoming budget year. They will soon make a case before a House appropriations committee. During the last budgeting year, state courts provided state courts with an additional $4.5 million. This budget paid for overtime and temporary workers to process the many expungements that Amendment 3 required. On May 5, the state also approved an additional $2.5 million supplemental budget.

The law explains how they use the revenue from taxes collected on recreational marijuana sales and fees paid by regulated businesses. According to the law, this revenue would cover the costs of regulating the program. Any additional revenue would go to the court system to cover the expenses associated with the expungements guaranteed under the law.

To access the additional funds, the courts must request reimbursement for incurred expenses related to performing additional work for the Circuit Court Budget Committee. According to the Missouri Supreme Court’s communications counsel, Beth Riggert, the committee has provided the courts $4.2 million in additional funding. These funds have often helped pay for overtime and further assistance to complete the expungement processes.

Greene County received $940,000 and used it to complete the most expungements, 4,306. However, the amount of funding and size of the county do not dictate which counties expunge the most records. For example, Laclede County expunged the second-highest number of records despite having a population of 36,000 and receiving roughly $35,000 from the assistance program.

Disclaimer:

Information provided here is for educational and informational purposes only and should not constitute as legal advice. We recommend you contact your own legal counsel for any questions regarding your specific practices and compliance with applicable laws.

Source

The post Missouri Circuit Courts Request $3.7m For Processing Marijuana Expungements appeared first on JDP.

Cincinnati’s city council will consider a proposal to expunge certain criminal records. Former City Council member Tamaya Dennard suggested the proposal, hoping to help individuals with criminal records better reintegrate into society.

This proposal would address expungement for records concerning specific city ordinance violations. Council Member Denard also has a criminal record, accepting money for votes and facing arrest in 2020. She served time in prison for the offense and worked as the Center for Employment Opportunities director. This center is an agency that helps people with convictions find jobs. Since then, she commented on how she had the opportunity to re-enter society and acquire a successful career after returning.

As such, Council Member Denard questioned why others could not have similar success. She presented the proposal to the Law and Governance Committee, hoping to help individuals with low-level crimes on their records. If enacted, it would change how Cincinnati treats people with criminal backgrounds. For example, it would automatically expunge warrants and court no-shows after seven years have passed. It would also repeal mandatory sentencing for some convictions. Finally, she hopes it would end Cincinnati’s policy of not hiring individuals for five years after a conviction.

One of the council members, Scotty Johnson, supported studying the expungement plan’s viability. Furthermore, he stressed the importance of helping people trying to reintegrate into society. Prosecutor Melissa Powers also expressed support for the proposal. She voiced interest in developing these policies. Furthermore, she approved giving individuals second chances and the chance to be productive community members.

However, some have voiced disapproval of the proposal. Those disapproving of it believe that leniency on criminal records may reduce punishment’s deterrent effect. In response to this argument, Council Member Dennard stated that losing the ability to obtain housing or a job is already a punishment. As such, she feels it becomes a question of how much punishment individuals should get.

In one response to the “Part of deterrence is punishment” claim, Council member Dennard replied, “Is it punished to no end? Or at what point do you show mercy and say, ‘Okay, you suffered enough…'”

Enacting this proposal could help many individuals with eligible criminal records. The most significant aid comes from automatically expunging these records. This change would open more opportunities for jobs and housing for many individuals. It would also improve the ability of people with criminal records to get a job with the city by no longer refusing to hire them for five years after a conviction.

Disclaimer:

Information provided here is for educational and informational purposes only and should not constitute as legal advice. We recommend you contact your own legal counsel for any questions regarding your specific practices and compliance with applicable laws.

Source

The post Cincinnati City Council Considers Expungement Proposal appeared first on JDP.

The Governor of Massachusetts plans to pardon anyone convicted of simple marijuana possession in the state. According to the governor’s office, this could mean pardoning hundreds of thousands. However, the state does not have exact information on how many people qualify for the pardon. 

The governor’s office also explained that pardons do not apply to other marijuana-related charges. For example, those charged for driving under the influence will not qualify. Anyone with charges related to the distribution of marijuana will also face disqualification for the pardon.

Those who did not receive a pardon for marijuana convictions will find this information still in their background reports. As a result, potential employers or landlords may still access these records and use them when deciding the individual’s eligibility.

Governor Healey will be the second governor to pardon people for simple marijuana possession. This decision is in response to President Biden’s pardons for simple marijuana possession in Washington, DC. At the time, the President asked all state governors to do the same.

The first to follow President Biden’s example was the governor of Oregon. She pardoned people in her state with convictions for simple marijuana possession of no more than one ounce, resulting in over 47,000 pardons. In December of 2023, President Biden pardoned those with convictions for using or attempting to possess marijuana on federal land. He asked again for Governors to issue simple pardons. 

The Massachusetts Governor stated that pardons would be automatic for most individuals. As such, individuals do not need to do anything to update their criminal records. She also explained what to do when someone needs to prove they received a pardon before the state updates their records. Anyone may use an online form to request proof. She also encouraged those who felt passed over for a pardon to apply online for proof.

The plan has received widespread support among elected officials, criminal justice reform advocates, and others. Unfortunately, issuing these pardons may not be straightforward. For example, the plan must receive support from the Governor’s Council to approve the pardons. This council is an eight-member group tasked with reviewing pardons.

Following a vote to approve the measure, Governor Healey stated that the pardons would become effective immediately. However, updating an individual’s records may take longer to reflect the change. Governor Healey acknowledged that “Nobody should face barriers to getting a job, housing or an education because of an old misdemeanor marijuana conviction that they would not be charged for today.” As such, she voiced gratitude for President Biden’s actions and her desire to answer his call to action.

Disclaimer:

Information provided here is for educational and informational purposes only and should not constitute as legal advice. We recommend you contact your own legal counsel for any questions regarding your specific practices and compliance with applicable laws.

Source

The post Massachusetts Governor Proposes Pardons for Marijuana Possession appeared first on JDP.

The Montgomery County Council in Maryland recently introduced a new ban-the-box bill. It would strengthen the county’s existing ban-the-box requirements for landlords. For example, it would improve the established protections for renters. To do so would reinforce the requirement to disclose criminal and credit histories before landlords make a preliminary decision.

Council member Laurie-Anne Sayles sponsored the bill, with Council Members Evan Glass and Sidney Katz cosponsoring it. They introduced the bill to amend the county’s ban-the-box legislation. The legislation to receive the changes is the Housing Justice Act, which legislators passed in 2021. This Act prohibits housing providers from performing a criminal background check or credit history check before making a conditional offer. 

They explained that the amendments would clarify what landlords can and cannot do during the application process. According to Council Member Glass, “This comes from a very good place of wanting people to get housed.” Glass further emphasized how the ban-the-box amendments would add to applicants’ rights during the process.

The amended ban-the-box law would restrict what records landlords may consider when deciding whether to offer housing after performing background checks. Under the Act, landlords cannot consider arrest records that did not lead to convictions. Other information landlords cannot use include nonviolent crimes. Examples include marijuana possession, misdemeanor theft, indecent exposure, and other low-level offenses.

However, the ban-the-box law explicitly allows landlords to inquire about arrests or convictions for sex offenses. The law also allows them to deny housing based on such records or for appearing on sex offender registries. If a housing provider chooses to rescind a conditional offer based on an applicant’s arrest or conviction record, they must first:

1. Provide the applicant with a copy of the criminal record report;
2. Notify the applicant of the intent and the specific items that caused the intent, and
3. Provide the applicant seven days to inform the housing provider of potential inaccuracies in the item or items.

Under the legislation under consideration, housing providers must display information about the Housing Justice Act on their websites and in rental offices. Though the Housing Justice Act requires landlords to provide disclosures, this bill “would specifically require a housing provider to include a statement or addendum with every rental application that outlines the process and use of criminal arrest, convictions, and credit screenings in a rental housing decision.” Finally, the ban-the-box amendments would change reporting and tracking to ensure the requirements meet the Act’s goals.

Disclaimer:

Information provided here is for educational and informational purposes only and should not constitute as legal advice. We recommend you contact your own legal counsel for any questions regarding your specific practices and compliance with applicable laws.

Source

The post Ban-the-Box Program May See Amendments in Montgomery County appeared first on JDP.

The Hawaii House of Representatives recently passed House Bill 1595 (HB 1595), which the Senate will soon review. This bill would create a state-initiated process to expunge eligible criminal records at no cost. According to the House, it would “expunge records of arrests and convictions for the offense of promoting a detrimental drug.” 

Hawaii already has an expungement program for people with non-convictions. There are programs for some first-time alcohol, property, and drug offenses as well. However, some have criticized the existing program due to its costs and the difficulty many allegedly face navigating it.

HB 1595 would automatically expunge eligible low-level marijuana possession cases at no cost to the individuals affected. This change also affects those with convictions for possessing three grams of marijuana. The bill would also automatically expunge these records, regardless of whether it is a first-time offense.

It currently costs $35 to apply for a first-time expungement and $50 for any expungements after the first. However, $10 of these applications are non-refundable. Other related steps include obtaining a court order and retaining an attorney. Unfortunately, these costs can make it difficult for some people to expunge their records. 

Should they overcome these hurdles, another step that significantly delays expungement requires the court to review the requested cases’ removal. According to Last Prisoner Project’s policy advisor, Frank Steifel, connecting court records with police agencies’ data is like “following the breadcrumbs.” Though necessary to ensure the courts expunge the correct cases, the process often takes months.

Passing HB 1595’s free state-initiated program would allow anyone qualified for an expungement to obtain one. According to HB 1595, the Hawaii Criminal Justice Data Center would identify cases made eligible for expungement within 30 days of its enactment. The data center must forward this data to the state courts, county police departments, state attorney general’s office, and county prosecuting attorneys. 

The attorney general’s office must issue expungement orders “annulling, canceling, and rescinding all criminal records, including records of arrest and any records of conviction.” The office must do so within 60 days of receiving the biennial reports. These records include arrests, convictions, pending charges, petty misdemeanor convictions, and civil violations. Within one year of receiving these orders, “the judiciary [must] seal or otherwise remove from its publicly accessible electronic databases all judiciary files and other information pertaining to each eligible case, including, where applicable, any records of arrest, indictment, trial, verdict, dismissal, or discharge.”

Disclaimer:

Information provided here is for educational and informational purposes only and should not constitute as legal advice. We recommend you contact your own legal counsel for any questions regarding your specific practices and compliance with applicable laws.

Source

The post HB 1595 Passes Through Hawaii House of Representatives appeared first on JDP.