You are here: Home / Archives for criminalhc

Despite Cessation of the Federal Eviction Moratorium, Confusion Remains

October 21, 2021 By

When the federal Covid related eviction moratorium ended on August 26, 2021 due to a Supreme Court ruling, confusion continued as lawmakers started to review a potential reimplementation of eviction moratoriums, while some authorities suggest eviction moratoriums could be detrimental to renters. Even as the federal eviction moratorium ended several states continued similar moratoriums and combined with a potential renewal of Covid related eviction moratoriums, a best practice remains for property managers and/or landlords work with a well-qualified third-party tenant screening agency to continue to be compliant with existing laws governing tenant screening.

Even as a Supreme Court ruling quashed the legality of a federal Covid related eviction moratorium, some states continue to impose eviction restrictions, and, further, some lawmakers are looking to reenact some form of renter protections against eviction, despite arguments suggesting eviction moratoriums could be disadvantageous to renters. The process of tenant screening will remain challenging for landlords and/or property managers as the country continues to work Covid and, subsequently, a best practice is to work with a well-qualified third-party tenant screening agency to remain ahead of any changing laws which govern tenant screening.

In a recent opinion post on thehill.com on September 30, 2021, Senior Policy Research Editor, Tracy C. Miller, comments on the challenges that an eviction moratorium may have on renters.

Although the Supreme Court recently annulled the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) eviction moratorium, some states still have eviction moratoria in effect. In the short run, these policies appear to benefit tenants at the expense of their landlords. In the long run, however, moratoria make it harder for people with low credit scores or unstable employment records to find any place to rent. Ironically, prohibiting evictions now may result in even more people being homeless later. thehill.com/opinion/finance/574623-how-eviction-moratoria-could-increase-homelessness-in-the-long-run

Miller continues to argue against moratorium by suggesting (thehill.com; Sep. 30, 21):

It’s likely that some landlords will never be compensated for the rent they lost due to the eviction moratorium. It gave some tenants an excuse to pay less rent than they could actually afford. Government bureaucrats cannot possibly know what options are available to some tenants for paying rent when their income declines. The possibility of eviction would increase a tenant’s incentive to find a way to pay. Some could negotiate a reduction or a delay with their landlords. ibid

The net affects the eviction moratorium on renters as well as landlords and property managers may not be felt in the near future but the possibility of changes to law remain.

A challenge such as an eviction moratorium is bound to create legislation that will most certainly affect landlords.

As the delta variant continues to impact the country some lawmakers are looking to reimplement an eviction moratorium.

From the Associated Press on September 21, 2021:

Several progressive lawmakers on Tuesday introduced a bill that would reimpose a nationwide eviction moratorium at a time when deaths from COVID-19 are running at their highest levels since early March.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo., said the bill would direct the secretary of Health and Human Services to implement a ban on evictions in response to the COVID pandemic. It would also amend a section of the Public Health Service Act to grant permanent authority to Health and Human Services to implement an eviction moratorium to address public health crises. apnews.com/article/health-courts-united-states-public-health-coronavirus-pandemic-34a52c4ebc7c5f16b290ba73df541fda

With the ongoing challenge related to Covid 19 and potential evictions working with a well-qualitied third-party tenant screening agency should remain a priority for any property manager or landlord.

Filed Under: Tenant Screening

Changes in Search Criteria for Public Records Could Have Significant Impact

October 19, 2021 By

Recent changes in the use of an individual’s identifiers (date of birth, Social Security Number, etc.) on public record retrieval could have a significant impact on pre-employment background screening. Recent court and state legislative actions in California and Michigan regarding the use of personal identifying information on public records searches could greatly affect pre-employment background screening and, subsequently, a best practice remains to work with a well-qualified third-part background screening agency in order to remain compliant with law.

With California restricting the use of personal information identifiers from public record searches via court action and Michigan essentially doing the same thing through legislative action, the criteria used in retrieving public records could be irrevocably changed.

The use of public records and the accurate retrieval of such are under fire and could alter how public records are pulled in Michigan and California, but, potentially, across the country as well; and a best practice remains to work with a well-qualified third-party pre-employment background screening agency in order remain fully compliant with laws governing the use of public records.

Earlier in 2021 the Supreme Court of Riverside County ruled to restrict the use of personal identifier information for retrieving public records. (All of Us or None of Us, Riverside Chapter v. Hamrick, Cal. S.Ct., No. 269654) This move will significantly impact the use of public records as part of pre-employment background screening.

From JDSupra.com on July 21, 2021 discussing initial findings from the court:

The case centers around a California Rule of Court which specifies how electronic trial court records are made available to the public. Rule 2.503 (b) requires that the trial courts that maintain an electronic index must provide remote electronic access to “indexes in all cases” to the extent feasible to do so. Rule 2.503 also specifies what must be excluded from such indexes, including two pieces of information at issue in the case, date of birth and driver’s license number. jdsupra.com/legalnews/california-court-of-appeal-ruling-could-4430508/

The impact of the court case was immediate with several counties in California limiting the use of identifiers in public record retrieval.

On September 8, 2021 JDSupra.com reported that on September 1, 2021 the California State Supreme Court declined to review the lower courts decision. jdsupra.com/legalnews/another-privacy-headache-for-california-7902509/ Further noted in the article, the impact will result in greater challenges for conducting background screening.

From JDSupra.com on September 8, 2021:

Companies that hire employees and engage independent contractors in California should brace for a significant slowdown in background checks that include criminal record searches in California state courts.1 This will result from the court of appeal’s opinion in All of Us or None v. Hamrick, which prohibited the Riverside Superior Court from allowing its electronic criminal case index to be searched using an individual’s known date of birth or driver’s license number. ibid

Additionally a similar action recently took place in Michigan…

From thePBSA.com on June 30, 2021:

…the Michigan Supreme Court issued an order that delays implementation of their rule which would make dates of birth unavailable. The implementation date has been changed from July 1, 2021 until January 1, 2022… thepbsa.org/government-relations/michigan-dob-redaction-information/

With similar actions in two states, often considered to be leaders in governing background screening, the potential for the elimination of certain personal information identifiers in other states remains high. A subsequent best practice is to work with a well-qualified third-party pre-employment background screening agency to remain compliant with law.

Filed Under: employment screening

Evictions: A Potential Ongoing Legacy of Covid 19

September 28, 2021 By

The future remains unclear for individuals affected by the CDC led Covid related eviction moratorium an, additionally, the use of eviction records may be impacted. The use of eviction records could be significantly impacted in years to come, potentially by law, and a best practice remains for landlords and property managers to work with a well-qualified third-party tenant screening agency in order to remain compliant with existing law as well as ahead of potential changes to the legal use of eviction records.

As the Covid related eviction moratorium has been extended through October 3, 2021, the future legal and lawful use of eviction records may change significantly and greatly impact landlords and property managers. Millions of individuals impacted by the eviction moratorium may face further challenge in the future as liability for past-rent remains in place, and the potential of post-moratorium eviction remains a concern; and landlords and/or property managers could be impacted as well should laws change, suggesting a best practice remains to work with a well-qualified third-party tenant screening agency in order to remain legally compliant.

Once the country moves past the current eviction moratorium a new challenge may emerge for landlords and/or property managers.

Eviction records are an important tool for landlords and remain available up to seven, noting all eviction related legal actions: cases lost, case won, or cases dismissed. Once the moratorium on evictions ends, the management of Covid related evictions could change.

From TheHill.com on August 15, 2021:

Many of the estimated 7.9 million U.S. tenants behind on rent breathed a sigh of relief on Aug. 3, when the CDC imposed a new 60-day eviction moratorium. Even with the extended order, millions of tenants will have COVID-related eviction records. Available data from Eviction Lab show that landlords filed over 468,000 eviction cases during the pandemic in the six states and 31 cities where Eviction Lab is able to track. The actual number is undoubtedly many times more than those recorded. thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/567883-eviction-records-long-term-impacts-of-the-covid-19-housing-crisis

Challenges remain with the distribution of rent relief funds from the federal government furthering concern for individuals behind on rent and expecting help.

From NPR.com on August 26, 2021:

Congress has approved nearly $50 billion to help people pay back rent and avoid eviction. But while in some states and counties that’s been working well, in many others the help hasn’t reached the vast majority of renters who need it.

By one estimate, 15 states still haven’t managed to get even 5% of those federal dollars out the door to renters facing eviction. npr.org/2021/08/26/1024668578/court-blocks-biden-cdc-evictions-moratorium

Post Covid could be more challenging for landlords due to the potential of new laws governing the use of eviction records, especially Covid related laws. A best practice, now and into the future, for landlords and property managers is to work with a well-qualified third-party tenant screening agency.

Filed Under: Tenant Screening

Expanding Ban the Box Laws Should Push HR Departments to Review Hiring process

September 16, 2021 By

Maine is set to enact a Ban the Box law that will greatly affect employers in that state, joining numerous jurisdictions across the country that have similar laws governing pre-employment background screening already in place. Ban the Box laws continue to spread across the country and existing laws are consistently changing, and hiring managers and HR Departments should take immediate note, continuing a best practice of working with a well-qualified third-party pre-employment background screening agency in order to remain compliant with evolving law.

Many states across the country have enacted “Ban the Box” laws governing the legal and lawful use of criminal history reports, as well as when criminal background records can be utilized as part of the hiring process, and these laws continue to evolve and change. Ban the Box laws will continue to change over time and employers must remain vigilant in ensuring all hiring policies are current and compliant by working closely with a pre-employment background screening agency.

Laws governing the use of criminal histories and when and where such a history can be reviewed by an employer continue to evolve and change. With each iteration these laws become more powerful and stringent.

From Lexology.com on August 16, 2021:

Over the last ten years, a flurry of “ban-the-box” laws have been enacted, on the state and local level. Such laws are now being passed at the federal level. In response, many employers reevaluated how they used criminal history screens and background checks in hiring. Now, lawmakers in several jurisdictions—like New York City, Philadelphia, and Illinois—are expanding existing laws, imposing new, more stringent requirements on employers. As a second wave of “fair chance” legislation starts to form, lawsuits related to criminal history screens and background checks have also intensified. The shifting legal landscape and growing risks of litigation present challenges for organizations large and small. Prudent employers will take this opportunity to review existing practices and build a compliant, flexible system for hiring new talent. www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=bbdcd487-477c-441a-9c14-fdbdf1d22c25

It’s very simple. Ban the Box laws will continue to expand and change, and every time this occurs employers should review hiring policies to ensure compliance with all laws governing the question of criminal history, as well as the appropriate use of criminal history reports. Subsequently, a best practice remains to work with a well-qualified third-party pre-employment background agency to remain compliant.

Filed Under: background checks

Updates to Background Screening in California Could Signal Further Change Across the Country

August 31, 2021 By

A recent change in California law regarding the governance of background screening could have significant impact on employers seeking to vet new hires. California is often seen as a leader in laws governing background screening and a court ruling eliminating the use of date of birth and driver’s license number will create challenges for hiring managers and HR departments, further highlighting the urgent need to work with a well-qualified third-party pre-employment background screening agency to remain compliant.

A California Court of Appeals has acted to remove date of birth and/or driver’s license numbers from being used as identifiers on individuals via electronic search, further complicating the acquisition of key data regarding new hires and the vetting process. Challenges to the use of public data as part of the pre-employment process continues to be complicated by court action, and the ruling in California should alert any hiring manager and/or HR Department to work with a third-party background screening agency to remain compliant with existing and forthcoming law.

Recently the California Court of Appeal ruled against the use of DOB and Driver’s License as part of electronic County Court searches, thus creating greater challenges and concern regarding pre-employment background screening.

California is a leading state regarding laws governing the use of public records, such as criminal history records, in pre-employment background screening and action taken by this state could spread across the country.

From The National Law Review’s website on July 28, 2021:

By ordering the Riverside Superior Court to remove birthdates and driver’s license numbers as data that can be used to identify individuals with a criminal record, the ability of employers (and others) to conduct criminal background checks will be further impeded if not made impossible. With the use of only a first and last name to conduct the search, the search results of a particular applicant or employee may show the criminal history of perhaps dozens of other people with the same or a similar name. natlawreview.com/article/new-restriction-background-checks-california

Various public agencies, associations and organizations are fighting back at the harsh reality the court decision has created.

From the website of Consumer Data Industry Association on July 16, 2021:

On July 15, 2021, a diverse group of trade associations and businesses, all with a keen interest in protecting the public, signed on to an amicus letter to the California Supreme Court asking the Court to reverse a lower court decision that, if left standing, would render most employment in the state severely delayed, and in many instances, they will no longer be possible at all. The amicus effort was led by the Consumer Data Industry Association (CDIA) and the Professional Background Screening Association (PBSA). On July 22, CDIA and PBSA filed a supplemental amicus with 13 additional businesses and associations. cdiaonline.org/15723-2/

Ultimately a higher court may be forced to further review this ruling, but challenges will be ongoing.

A best practice remains to work with a well-qualified third-party pre-employment background agency. The challenge of the California decision will impact hiring and create further confusion as the courts will surely have to make a final decision, a decision that could take years and eventually end up in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Important Note: The challenges the court record retrieval process is facing in light of this new California law could make it impossible to verify the identity of a person on a criminal record during a court check without using personally identifiable information like date of birth and/or driver’s license number and why keeping these records on file at a courthouse without these key details would deem this record keeping process completely pointless to the extent that keeping any court records on file will become absolutely useless as these documents will not be able to prove anything without a way to identify and verify a record match to any individual.

Filed Under: background checks

Michigan’s Removal of Date of Birth Identifier on Public Records Causing Havoc

August 3, 2021 By

Pre-Employment Screening hits a hurdle with the removal of personally identifiable information like individuals dates of birth from public records that will make it extremely difficult to match criminal background records with the person who committed the offense.

Across the country many states are starting to remove key identifiers from public records and the result may be increased time and cost in retrieving these records as related to pre-employment background screening. In Michigan the use of key identifiers such as DOB on public records will end and that will force background screening agencies to make greater use of researchers in order to fulfill key records requests, and a best practice remains for hiring managers to work closely with third-party pre-employment background screening agencies to remain compliant with new laws governing the use of public records.

Redaction of personal identifiers will create challenges for hiring managers and HR departments and suggests a best practice remains to work with a well-qualified third-party pre-employment background screening agency to remain up-to-date with changes in background screening and applicant vetting.

Pulling public records from County Courthouses has received a blow as more states are limiting the use of identifiers, such as DOB or CDL numbers, on public records, and this action will have serious implications for vetting applicants.

Recently, in Michigan, the use of identifiers has become limited by law.

From PBSA.org, a leading industry group for Background Screening, in June 2021 (No specific date provided):

Effective July 1, 2021 Michigan courts will redact date of birth (DOB) from their public records available through courthouses. This change is the result of Michigan’s ADM File No. 2017-28 and 2020-26 adopted by the Supreme Court that the State Court Administrative Office has interpreted to require clerks not to use or provide DOB in searches. This means that only one identifier (Name) will be available on court records. This change will impact all criminal background checks in Michigan until further notice. thepbsa.org/government-relations/michigan-dob-redaction-information/

Additional courts across the country are beginning to follow the same process highlighted by Michigan’s action, and could create significant challenges to those vetting employment applications.

In California a court challenge ruled that the use of identifiers should be limited.

From NBCPalmSprings.com on June 28, 2021:

All of Us or None argued that permitting the use of dates of birth and driver license numbers to initiate a search was a violation of Rule 2.507 and sections of the Government Code. nbcpalmsprings.com/2021/06/28/fees-now-in-effect-to-view-superior-court-criminal-records-online/

Michigan is not the only state to go in this direction. Other states, such as California, have varying degrees of redaction of identifiers. While public record searches will continue, the use of a single identifier (first, middle, last name) will push HR departments and hiring managers to work very closely with a third-party pre-employment background screening agency in order to properly match identities of candidates to public records.

Additionally the Professional Background Screening Association or PBSA was just recently able to suspend this new Michigan law for another year as they proved it would be a disaster for the court record retrieval process and could prevent many employers and landlords from finding out about their applicant’s criminal past that could cause tremendous risks to the safety of their employees and tenants.

To read more about the challenges involved in redacting personally identifiable information from public records like criminal background records and why Michigan delayed enacting of such a law for another year read recent CriminalBackgroundRecords.com press release: DOB and Other Identifiers Removed from Public Records, Potentially Slowing the Background Screening Process; Opines CriminalBackgroundRecords.com

Filed Under: background checks

Ban-the-Box Movement Expands to Reach College Applications

June 24, 2021 By

Ban-the-Box legislation has been sweeping across the country removing the box that asks if an employment applicant has a criminal past. The hope of the movement is to give job applicants with a criminal background record a better chance of getting employed by not having to admit they have a criminal record right away at the first phase of the hiring process.

Most recently some cities and states have looked into the removal of the box in rental housing applications. Now, the movement to ban-the-box has taken root in colleges and universities across the country and several states have recently taken steps to ban-the-box.

In Virginia, Gov. Northam signed legislation removing the “box” on state college and university applications.

From www.progress-index.com on June 3, 2021:

… were happy to be in attendance to see Gov. Ralph S. Northam ceremoniously sign legislation that removes that box from most Virginia-based colleges and universities. The legislation, which takes effect Jan. 1., 2022, has a special carve-out for Virginia Military Institute and for post-graduate law school programs.

The legislation does not completely take away criminal background checks, but it does push them further down the selection and acceptance process. That improves applicants’ chances of making it past the first round and provides an avenue for them to explain in detail just what that history included. progress-index.com/story/news/2021/06/03/virginia-governor-removes-criminal-record-checkbox-college-apps/7527473002/

At Florida Atlantic University staff are encouraging administration to ban-the-box. However, the efforts do create a perception of conflict, safety versus admission with criminal history.

From Yahoo.com on May 28, 2021:

A group of faculty members at Florida Atlantic University want the university to stop asking students to disclose their criminal histories on their applications — part of a growing movement to urge large schools and employers to rethink their application process.

The initiative proposed for FAU pits two interests against each other: the desire to give applicants with criminal pasts a chance at higher education against concerns surrounding public safety on school campuses. news.yahoo.com/fau-ban-box-quit-asking-110000169.html

The university continues to review its position.

And in Pennsylvania, similar efforts are underway.

From WHYY.org on October 21, 2020

A new bipartisan bill in Harrisburg would prohibit nearly two dozen universities in Pennsylvania from asking applicants about their criminal background records.

The Common Application, the most widely used college application in the country, stopped asking prospective students that question last year. But schools that want to continue using the application can still ask about a person’s juvenile and adult criminal records using their own supplemental forms. If the bill passes, that will no longer be an option.

Speaking at a virtual news conference on Wednesday, state Rep. Morgan Cephas (D-Phila.) said her “ban-the-box” legislation is needed now more than ever. whyy.org/articles/ban-the-box-bill-would-nix-criminal-record-question-from-pa-college-applications/

As Colleges, Universities and State Governments look deeper into banning the criminal history box on their applications the discussion on how to proceed and what will be best for each entity going forward will remain a hotly debated topic.

Across the country when and how criminal background reports can be used as a part of employment, renting and, recently, academic applicants has changed, and will continue to change. New laws are enacted on a regular basis, and a best practice remains to work with a well-qualified background screening agency in order to remain compliant with laws governing the fair, lawful, and legal use of criminal records.

To read more about why Colleges and Universities are now deciding to consider banning the question of criminal history on their admittance applications and why this use of ban-the-box laws is different than others being enacted like in the employment sector read recent CriminalBackgroundRecords.com press release: Ban-the-Box on College Applications Remain in the News

Filed Under: criminal background check

Federal Judge Strikes Down Federal Eviction Moratorium

June 8, 2021 By

On March 5, 2021 a federal judge struck down the current moratorium on evictions, as enacted by the CDC, and instantly created confusion regarding the liability of back rent and the potential of eviction for failure to pay rent as related to Covid related job loss. While the news is fairly fresh, without question landlords and property managers will have concerns, and a best practice remains to work with a well-qualified third-party tenant screening agency.

On Tuesday, March 5, 2021, a federal judge put the current federal eviction moratorium on hold, stating the CDC does not have the authority to impose such an action. Certainly landlords and property managers should take immediate note of this action, as a call-to-action to review tenant screening policies, and a best practice is to work with a third-party tenant screening agency to remain compliant with law.

News outlets across the country and around the world announced the halt of the CDC enacted federal eviction moratorium.

From USAToday.com on May 5, 2021:

A federal judge has thrown out a national moratorium on evictions enacted last year to help Americans who have fallen behind on their rent during the coronavirus pandemic.

U.S. District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich of the District of Columbia ruled Wednesday the federal government overreached in enacting the ban. usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/05/05/judge-strikes-down-covid-moratorium-eviction-rental-properties/4958924001/

It’s too soon to see how the cessation of the federal moratorium will affect the rental market, but landlords and property managers will certainly take note.

From Aljazeera on May 5, 2021:

The National Association of Realtors welcomed the judge’s decision, saying a better solution would be to help tenants pay rent, taxes and utility bills.

“With rental assistance secured, the economy strengthening and unemployment rates falling, there is no need to continue a blanket, nationwide eviction ban,” the group said.

As part of a $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill passed earlier this year, the US Congress provided $30bn in rental and housing assistance for people at risk of eviction or losing their homes. aljazeera.com/news/2021/5/5/us-judge-throws-out-pandemic-related-moratorium-on-evictions

Seemingly the court took into consideration what the moratorium attempted to do.

From ABC11.com on May 5, 2021:

“The Court recognizes that the COVID-19 pandemic is a serious public health crisis that has presented unprecedented challenges for public health officials and the nation as a whole. The pandemic has triggered difficult policy decisions that have had enormous real-world consequences. The nationwide eviction moratorium is one such decision,”

“It is the role of the political branches, and not the courts, to assess the merits of policy measures designed to combat the spread of disease, even during a global pandemic,” …. “The question for the Court is a narrow one: Does the Public Health Service Act grant the CDC the legal authority to impose a nationwide eviction moratorium? It does not.” abc11.com/cdc-eviction-moratorium-federal-judge-rules-cannot-issue-moratoriums-evictions-covid/10584661/

Landlords and property managers should take note when big news affects their business, and this is big news. Reviewing tenant screening policies should be an absolute and a best practice remains working with a well-qualified third-party tenant screening agency.

To learn more about the consequences of a federal judge striking down the national eviction moratorium and what this means to renters and landlords in the USA read recent TenantScreeningUSA.com press release: Recent Ruling Strikes Down Federal Eviction Moratorium, Creates Potential of Confusion for Renters and Landlords; Opines TenantScreeningUSA.com

Filed Under: Tenant Screening

New, Existing and Modified Ban-the-Box Laws can be Confusing for Hiring Managers

June 1, 2021 By

It is clear that at this point in time ban-the-box laws are not going away as new related laws get passed and existing laws get amended. Hiring managers and employers need to review new and existing ban-the-box laws that fall within their jurisdiction and such laws certainly will affect employment screening policies going forward.

Ban the Box legislation continues to expand across the country but challenges to pre-employment vetting remain as existing laws get modified or get challenged over legality or jurisdiction. Ban the Box isn’t going away and will continue to expand across the country, yet it should be noted that when laws change or get adapted hiring managers and HR departments should take immediate note and continue a best practice of working with a well-qualified third-party pre-employment screening agency in order to remain compliant with laws governing the use of public records in hiring.

Pennsylvania recently updated Ban the Box laws, further restricting employers use of public records, and represents just one of many challenges employers face in maintaining current and compliant hiring policies. Working with a well-qualified third-party pre-employment background screening agency remains a best practice in staying current with rapidly changing Ban the Box legislation.

Changes to current employment and Ban the Box laws in Pennsylvania highlight how these laws can evolve and potentially create confusion for hiring managers and HR Departments.

From the National Law Review on April 9, 2021:

Changes to Philadelphia law will further restrict employers’ use and reliance on applicant, current employee, and independent contractor background information and affect the employee application and employee management process. natlawreview.com/article/philadelphia-enacts-key-changes-to-ban-box-credit-screening-ordinances

One of the more interesting changes to the law relates to current employees.

Again, from the National Law Review on April 9, 2021:

Bill No. 200479 amends the FCRSS to make it applicable not only to the application or transfer process, but to the use of any current employee criminal histories. The law’s restrictions and procedural requirements now apply also to current employees, as well as applicants in Philadelphia. Moreover, independent contractors and gig workers are afforded the same protections as full-time or part-time employees or applicants. ibid.

In Iowa such a challenge to Ban the Box laws occurred, something hiring managers should be aware of and monitor.

From Courthouse News on April 9, 2021:

An Iowa city’s ordinance that initially bars employers from checking job applicants’ criminal background records should be struck down because it conflicts with state and federal law, an Iowa business group told the state’s high court… courthousenews.com/iowa-supreme-court-urged-to-strike-down-ban-the-box-ordinance/

Hiring managers and HR Departments should always take note of challenges or reform to an existing law. These changes could greatly affect the ability to use certain records, such as criminal history reports, as part of the pre-employment process. A best practice is to work with a well-qualified third-party pre-employment background screening agency.

Even though some Ban the Box laws can be challenged based on legality and/or jurisdiction it is important to note their legitimacy and for employers it is important to abide by these laws when it comes to the use of criminal background checks in the hiring process. When and where an employer or hiring manager can perform a criminal background record check in the employment screening process must be understood and partnering with a professional employment screening company is always a best practice.

To read more about why new and existing ban-the-box laws are causing confusion amongst employers and hiring managers and why working with a professional employment screening company can help with understanding such laws and how to remain compliant with the use of criminal background checks in the hiring process read recent CriminalBackgroundRecords.com press release: Change to Ban the Box Laws Can Lead to Confusion for Hiring Managers and HR Departments

Filed Under: employment screening

Oregon Senates Pending Bill may set the Tone on Covid Related Past-Due Rent

May 6, 2021 By

As the federal eviction moratorium has been extended through June, some states, such as Oregon, have taken on the challenge of managing the challenge of past-due rent, and may prove to be the leaders in the country.

States such as Washington and Oregon have long been leaders in rental policy and SB 282 may prove to be a blueprint for other states in the management of past-due rent and related eviction moratorium policy, but landlords and property managers, as they take immediate note, should continue to work with a well-qualified third-party tenant screening agency in order remain compliant with all laws and policies related to tenant screening.

Senate Bill 282 continues to move through Oregon’s legislative process and should this bill be enacted it may prove to be a best practice in managing past-due rent as related to Covid moratoriums. Oregon has often been a leader in housing policy and the potential enactment of SB282 may prove to be another touchpoint in that history.

As concerns about past-due rent and on-going eviction moratoriums, Oregon has taken steps to manage the on-coming crisis.

Senate Bill 282 continues to move through the Oregon legislative body having recently passed the Senate Housing and Development committee.

From PamplinMedia.com on March 30, 2021:

Tenants would get more time to pay past-due rent, and their future ability to rent would be protected, under a bill that is headed to a vote of the Oregon Senate.

An amended Senate Bill 282 was advanced Tuesday, March 30, on a 4-1 vote by the Senate Housing and Development Committee.

Though the bill does not extend the current pandemic-related moratorium on evictions past June 30 — or forgive back rent — it would give them until Feb. 28, 2022, to pay back any rents due from April 1, 2020, or make arrangements to obtain rental assistance. Tenants would have to stay current on rent after July 1, but they could not be evicted for nonpayment of past-due rent during the extended grace period. pamplinmedia.com/pt/266-politics/503155-403091-tenants-could-get-another-break-on-past-due-rent

While working through the challenges of managing past-due rent may be a positive, there are detractors.

From SalemReporter.com on March 10, 2021:

But landlords say the legislation will be another burden after already having forgone rent payments since Gov. Kate Brown issued her initial eviction moratorium in March. Landlords also worry about the state’s ability to deliver promised relief and the legislation will create loopholes for unscrupulous tenants. salemreporter.com/posts/3812/with-the-clock-ticking-on-an-eviction-timebomb-the-oregon-legislature-considers-additional-protections-for-renters

When new laws are enacted and may be as impactful as SB 282 landlords and property managers should take immediate note. A best practice remains to work with a well-qualified third-party tenant screening agency in order to remain compliant with law.

To learn more about why Oregon’s new law may be a precursor of what States need to do to handle the housing past due rents from Covid moratoriums and why giving tenants a year or so to pay back past due rent amounts may not be

feasible without some kind of rental payment relief to landlords from the government read recent TenantScreeningUSA.com press release: Pending Bill in Oregon Senate Could Set the Tone on Covid Related Past-Due Rent; Opines TenantScreeningUSA.com

Filed Under: Tenant Screening
« Older Posts