The California Civil Rights Department (CRD) has announced a settlement agreement with a property management company and owner. This settlement resolved complaints that an Inglewood apartment complex refused to consider potential tenants with criminal histories. 

According to the agreement, the company and owner must update their screening policies to comply with state regulations. They must also provide personnel with training on fair housing regulations and pay $10,000 in monetary compensation. The CRD’s investigation began after receiving a complaint that the respondents had a blanket ban on renting to individuals with a criminal background. 

The Complaint

According to the complaint, this ban adversely affected black renters. Other than the criminal background, the individual who filed the complaint claimed to qualify as a renter. However, they alleged that the company chose not to rent to them due to a criminal background check. They further argued that the respondents failed to consider court documents. Reviewing this information would have indicated that he never received a conviction, proving the screening report inaccurate.

Under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), housing providers cannot enforce a blanket ban on potential renters with criminal histories. These regulations require housing providers to base application decisions on a direct link between a given conviction and a specific non-discriminatory interest or purpose. The FEHA includes examples such as the safety of other residents, employees, or the property.

What to Consider

Housing providers should consider the nature or severity of the crime when determining its connection to interest or purpose. They should also note the time elapsed since the applicant’s criminal conduct. It is also crucial to only consider accurate and permissible criminal records. These do not include arrests that did not lead to a conviction, sealed, dismissed, or expunged convictions, and most adjudications or matters processed in the juvenile justice system.

The FEHA protects California residents from employment and housing discrimination, among other concerns. The CRD enforces the FEHA. According to the settlement, the CRD required the company and owner to:

• Continue to comply with federal and state housing regulations;
• Train all relevant staff regarding fair housing laws with a focus on how criminal history information can have a disparate impact on certain populations;
• Update their tenant screening policies to comply with state regulations;
• Display a CRD Fair Housing Fact Sheet in specified areas of the facilities and
• Pay $10,000 made payable to the complainant.

This settlement illustrates the importance of accurate and thorough criminal record checks. It also emphasizes how employers and landlords must comply with FEHA regulations. Working with a trustworthy background check provider can help companies and owners avoid violating these regulations.

JDP makes background checks easy and reliable. Speak with a compliance expert today.

Source

Michigan legislators have considered several bills that would increase the availability of affordable housing. House Bill 4878 is part of the “Renter’s Bill of Rights” package that is not progressing. Despite this delay, lawmakers recently heard testimony about a bill concerning criminal background checks for screening potential tenants.

House Bill 4878 would “prohibit landlords from requiring certain disclosures from certain applicants for rental units or taking adverse actions against certain applicants based on certain disclosures; to provide exceptions; to require the promulgation of rules; to provide remedies; to prescribe civil sanctions; and to provide for the powers and duties of certain state and local governmental officers and entities.”

Bill Effects

Passing this bill would prevent landlords from performing criminal background checks. It would also prohibit questioning an applicant about their criminal history. However, House Bill 4878 provides exceptions for federal law requirements or laws related to sex offenders. In addition, it would require landlords to follow a complex set of procedures. Failure to comply would subject them to civil liability and prosecution.

Advocates voiced concerns about the difficulty that individuals with criminal records have in obtaining affordable housing. As such, this bill could help improve these individuals’ ability to obtain housing. However, opponents argue that landlords should know about tenants and potential tenants. They believe this knowledge should include whether applicants have a criminal record. 

The Bill’s Necessity

Discrimination against individuals with criminal records during tenant screening has made it difficult for these people to obtain housing. This discrimination has led to many individuals struggling to achieve economic stability as well. The current law allows landlords and housing managers discretion when conducting tenant screening.

This ability often results in strict policies that screen out people with criminal records who would otherwise be good tenants. These policies also made it challenging for previously incarcerated individuals. The struggle to acquire housing significantly increased the likelihood of them becoming homeless. As such, recidivism grew more likely.

 Supporters hope House Bill 4878 will reduce the difficulty people with a criminal record have in obtaining affordable housing. If it passes, it could help many Michigan residents since almost one in three have a criminal record.

Landlords and housing managers should prepare in case House Bill 4878 passes. One way to prepare is by reviewing and updating policies as needed, ensuring they avoid potential criminal and civil penalties. Working with a trustworthy background check company can also ensure compliance. The right partner will provide accurate reports compliant with federal, state, and local laws.

Background checks are made easy with JDP. Ask any questions you may have and learn more by contacting a sales rep today.

Source

A U.S. district court in Kentucky has granted a defendant a motion to dismiss a case concerning the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). In this case, the plaintiff rented an apartment in Kentucky. However, the motion passed due to the case lacking personal jurisdiction.

According to the plaintiff, the apartment complex kept her security deposit after she moved out. It also notified her that she owed $330 for cleaning costs. The plaintiff later discovered that a residential screening company included this apartment debt in her credit report. Though the plaintiff disputed it, the defendant informed her that the apartment complex validated the account and sent it to a collection agency.

As a result, the plaintiff sued for damages. However, the defendants moved to dismiss the case, claiming it lacked personal jurisdiction. They explained that the only contact made with the plaintiff involved written responses to the plaintiff’s inquiries. Furthermore, these responses provided information only.

According to the case, the defendants included a debt collection and a residential screening company based in Texas. The apartment manager hired these companies to collect the debt and report it to the national consumer reporting agencies.

The court studied whether the Kentucky long-arm statute applied to the defendants due to the prong for transacting business in the state. The plaintiff claimed they transacted business in Kentucky because one defendant sent her letters attempting to collect the debt. However, the court disagreed with this argument.

It clarified that the plaintiff received one letter unrelated to her inquiries. The court found the one letter insufficient as a basis for the action, as the plaintiff filed the complaint two years after receiving the letter. However, the plaintiff continued to argue her point against the defendants.

For example, the plaintiff argued that the court had jurisdiction under the FCRA. She claimed the defendant furnished information to the national consumer reporting agencies in an attempt to collect a debt in Kentucky. She also explained that the defendant provided defamatory credit information.

According to her argument, the defendants knew this information would get republished in the state. As such, they willfully harmed her in Kentucky. The court disagreed with this dissertation. The plaintiff failed to specify the provision in the Kentucky long-arm statute that supported this argument. She also did not cite any recent case laws to support her theory. 

Though the plaintiff failed to prove her case, companies should ensure they comply with the FCRA and other background-checking regulations. Working with a background screening company is the best way to maintain compliance. The right partner will provide accurate and compliant reports, ensuring companies make informed decisions.

JDP makes background checks easy and reliable. Speak with a compliance expert today.

Source

Since New York passed its Clean Slate Act, the city has seen other bills to improve opportunities for the formerly incarcerated. One such push includes the Fair Chance Housing Campaign. This campaign intends to ban housing discrimination against those with criminal records.

Some criminal justice advocates have tried to pass similar legislation for years, hoping to help these individuals. Their goal is to achieve the same type of housing protection that these individuals obtained in employment through the Clean Slate Act. Many studies have shown the crucial part housing plays when reintegrating previously incarcerated people into the community. 

As such, criminal justice advocates believe it helps those with criminal records and the community. For example, housing previously incarcerated individuals improves the city’s overall safety. Those with stable housing have proven less likely to reoffend.

Unfortunately, previously incarcerated individuals are much more likely to become homeless than the general population. One study found that previously incarcerated people were nearly ten times more likely to be homeless than others. They are also more likely to live in motels than others, leaving them more vulnerable to becoming homeless.

Homelessness has become a significant problem for those with multiple incarcerations on their records. In addition, homelessness often leads to repeat offenses and imprisonment, thus worsening their situation. This cycle is one of several reasons the Fair Chance Housing Campaign pushes the city council to consider their bill.

The bill would “prohibit housing discrimination in rentals, sales, leases, subleases, or occupancy agreements in New York City, on the basis of an arrest record or criminal history. Landlords, owners, agents, employers, and real estate brokers would be prohibited from obtaining criminal record information at any stage in the process. These entities would be able to take adverse actions against current occupants for reasons other than a person’s arrest record or criminal history, as long as they are complying with laws protecting victims of domestic violence, sex offenses, or stalking.” It would also enforce exceptions when federal, state, or local laws require criminal background checks or exclude such screening.

If this campaign is successful, it will require landlords to change any necessary policies to comply. Like how employers must review their policies for the Clean Slate Act, landlords would have to consider their tenant policies. The best way for employers and landlords to comply with relevant laws is to partner with an experienced background screening company.

JDP makes background checks easy and reliable. Speak with a compliance expert today.

Source

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently announced guidance for landlords, property managers, and others who require background checks on potential tenants. The tenant screening reports often contain information such as rental and eviction history, criminal history, and credit history. 

The guidance reminds housing providers, “Background checks from consumer reporting agencies are consumer reports, and under the law, [they] have certain responsibilities when it comes to using them.” It also clarified that individuals or businesses could obtain consumer reports only for permissible purposes. In addition, it stressed that they must use the consumer report for that purpose only, emphasizing no further uses.

The FTC also clarified what qualifies as “adverse actions.” For example, the agency revealed that adverse actions include using information from a consumer report, however briefly. Denying housing to an applicant or asking for a different deposit amount due to a consumer report also counts as adverse actions. 

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) presides over adverse actions and requests for reports from consumer reporting agencies (CRAs). It requires housing providers to notify the applicant in an adverse action notice. The notice can be electronic, oral, or written. It must contain the following. 

• The name, address, and phone number of the CRA (including a toll-free number for nationwide CRAs) that supplied the report
• A statement that the CRA did not make the adverse decision and cannot explain why the decision
• Notice of the consumer’s right to a free copy of their report from the CRA if requested within 60 days FCRA § 612
• Notice of the consumer’s right to dispute the accuracy or completeness of any information provided by the CRA FCRA § 611
• The consumer’s credit score, if used

The adverse action notice must inform individuals of their right to access the information in the consumer report. It allows consumers to review the report’s contents. In addition, this report would allow consumers to dispute the details if they find misinformation or inaccuracies.

The guidance suggests supplying the consumer with adverse action notices in writing. This recommendation is because written notices benefit the housing provider and applicant. For example, housing providers may use it as physical proof of compliance. In addition, applicants may use it to assert their rights when requesting a copy of their consumer report from the CRA that supplied it to the landlord. It also helps the dispute process when applicants challenge errors in their reports.

Similar to housing providers, employers must comply with the FCRA. Compliance includes providing an adverse action notice when taking related actions. Examples of adverse actions include denying employment or a promotion based on a consumer report. The best way to ensure compliance during the hiring process is to partner with an experienced background check company.

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

Connecticut recently passed a new law that would significantly change the tenant screening process. These changes occurred due to a hotly contested housing omnibus bill recently signed into law by Governor Ned Lamont.

The new law would seal certain eviction records and introduce new measures. These measures originated from Senate Bill 998, containing wide-ranging changes for landlords and tenants. Examples of the measures include anti-discrimination regulations, changes to application fees, and security deposits. It also removes specific court records related to evictions.

However, several measures mentioned in the initial mockup did not make it into the bill as the session ended. Despite this outcome, many supporters have high expectations for it. They believe it would still provide significant protections for tenants within the state.

The new legislation would task Connecticut’s Judicial Department to address specific records and eviction cases. According to the measure, the Department would remove internet-based records and identifying information from these cases. The affected records include dismissed, withdrawn, and cases that favored the tenant. This section of the law will become effective July 1, 2024, requiring the Judicial Department to remove the information within 30 days.

This regulation also accounts for databases maintained by background check providers that receive data from the state. Under this law, the Judicial Department cannot include removed records in the sale or transfer of case data. For example, it cannot provide such information to tenant screening providers.

Furthermore, the bill states that “[n]o person or entity shall, for any commercial purpose, disclose any record or identifying information concerning any summary process action that has been removed from the Judicial Department Internet website pursuant to subsection (a) of this section.” These commercial purposes include any use determining the suitability of any prospective tenant.

The bill will also provide protection beginning January 1, 2024, against eviction and rent increase for certain protected classes in apartments with five or greater units. Protected classes include individuals over 65 and those with intellectual or physical disabilities. Such cases require landlords to provide notices that explain their protected status.

Regulations concerning background checks are continuously changing, impacting employers’ and landlords’ ability to screen employees and tenants reliably. The best way to comply with these ever-shifting regulations is to partner with an experienced screening provider. The right partner can help employers keep abreast of local, state, and federal background check laws.

JDP makes background checks easy and reliable. Speak with a sales representative today.

Source