Written By: Kim Harms-Wilson, kharms@validityscreening.com
Legal Disclaimer: Validity Screening Solutions provides this material for educational and informational purposes only, and shall not be construed as legal advice, express or implied. For questions regarding your organization’s practices and compliance with applicable laws, please consult with your legal counsel.
Local and State News
Fair Chance and Expungements
Ohio Senate Bill Would Ban Private Employers from Including Criminal History Questions on Job Applications
Senate Bill 143 aims to prohibit most private employers from requesting criminal history information on initial job applications. If enacted, the bill would apply to private employers with five or more employees, while government entities would be exempt. In addition to prohibiting criminal history inquiries, employers would not be permitted to consider arrests that did not lead to a conviction or to use participation in a diversion program as a basis for employment decisions. Furthermore, the bill imposes specific requirements on employers who plan to deny an applicant, including:
- Conducting an individualized assessment.
- Providing written notice, including the reason for the preliminary decision.
- Supplying the applicant with a copy of their background report and informing them of their right to submit additional information, such as evidence of rehabilitation.
- Waiting at least five days before making a final decision.
- Extending the waiting period if the applicant disputes the background check.
Click here for the full article.
Proposed Washington Law Could Significantly Change Criminal Background Checks If Passed
House Bill 1747 (HB 1747) may introduce new compliance obligations for employers in Washington regarding the handling of criminal background checks. If enacted, covered employers would be required to wait until they have extended a conditional offer before inquiring about an applicant’s criminal history or conducting a background check. HB 1747 aims to expand Washington’s current Fair Chance law, which prohibits employers from asking about criminal history until they have confirmed that the applicant meets basic job qualifications.
Additionally, the bill imposes restrictions on the adverse action process. Employers would be prohibited from taking adverse action based on arrest records and juvenile convictions. For adult conviction records, employers must demonstrate a legitimate business reason for the decision prior to taking adverse action.
The new requirements under HB 1747 could create several challenges for employers, including delays in the hiring process and increased hiring costs. Failure to update policies and properly document hiring decisions might expose employers to legal risks. It is recommended that Washington employers review their job applications, interview questions, and background screening policies to ensure compliance should the bill pass later this year.
Click here for the full article.
Spokane Considers New Ordinance That Would Prohibit Discrimination Against Homeless Job Applicants
Spokane, Washington’s City Council is considering a proposed bill titled “Ban the Address.” This bill is modeled after “Ban the Box” legislation, which typically prevents employers from asking about criminal history on job applications. The “Ban the Address” bill would make it unlawful for Spokane employers to deny an individual employment or terminate their employment solely based on their housing status. Furthermore, employers would be prohibited from inquiring about an applicant’s housing status or requesting an address on job applications. If an individual’s housing status is pertinent to their ability to perform the duties required for the job position, then the law would not be applicable. Following the unsuccessful attempt to pass a “Homeless Bill of Rights” last year, the City Council of Spokane has decided to initiate discussions on the city’s approach to homelessness.
Click here for the full article.
New Jersey Governor Vetoes Bill That Would Remove Old Criminal Records from Background Checks
On March 17, 2025, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy vetoed Assembly Bill 3881 (AB 3881). This bill aimed to prevent the State Bureau of Identification (SBI) from releasing outdated criminal history records while pending expungement orders were still being processed. The purpose of the bill was to address the processing delays currently present under the existing law, which allows criminal history records to appear on background checks despite a court-granted expungement order. Governor Murphy vetoed the bill, stating that while he recognized its intent, the implementation could lead to further delays and create a larger backlog. Instead, he proposed a legislative revision that would require an online tracking system and annual reporting to better manage the state’s expungement backlog.
Click here for the full article.
Data Privacy and Artificial Intelligence (AI)
New York Governor Signs an Amendment to “The Shield Act”
In December 2024, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed an amendment to the state’s data breach law, section 899-aa of the N.Y. General Business Law, also referred to as The Shield Act. The amendment became effective immediately and modifies the data breach notification requirements outlined in the law. Key changes include a reduced timeline for consumer notification regarding data breaches and new regulatory reporting obligations. The amendment also mandates that the New York Department of Financial Services be notified when any New York resident is informed of a data breach. This requirement is in addition to notifications already required for the New York Attorney General, the Department of State, and the Division of State Police.
Click here for the full article.
California Bill Imposes New Obligations on Employers to Prevent Workplace Discrimination from AI-driven Tools
Introduced on February 20, 2025, Assembly Bill 1018 (AB 1018) seeks to regulate the use of automated decision systems (ADS). If passed, AB 1018 would establish strict compliance obligations for employers utilizing AI-driven hiring and employment management tools. While the bill is designed to prevent workplace discrimination, AB 1018 would be California’s most comprehensive AI regulation if signed into law. Some of the key requirements outlined in the bill include, but are not limited to:
- Opt Out, Transparency, and Appeal Rights
- Human Review
- Mandatory Performance Evaluations
- Third-Party Audits
- Data Management and Retention
- California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) Compliance
- Appointment of Compliance Officers and Internal Review
- Reporting Mandates and Attorney General Oversight
The framework of AB 1018 is likely to influence future AI legislation, even if this particular bill does not pass. It is recommended employers review and assess their AI tools and policies and monitor legislation to prepare for any potential compliance obligations.
Click here for the full article.
Federal News
CFPB Releases Report with Recommendations for Enhancing States’ Consumer Protection
In January 2025, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released the report, “Strengthening State-Level Consumer Protections.” The report provides recommendations aimed at enhancing consumer protection measures to effectively address evolving risks. Some of the CFPB’s recommendations include:
- Strengthening remedies and investigation tools.
- Extending consumer protection to business transactions.
- Enhancing private enforcement.
- Ensuring that consumer data and privacy rights are both strong and enforceable.
States may utilize the CFPB report to review their laws and regulations in response to evolving risks.
Click here for the full article.
Fourth Circuit Issues Ruling on Furnishers Obligation Under the FCRA
On March 14, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a ruling regarding the obligations of furnishers under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) in relation to disputed information. Specifically, the ruling addresses a furnisher’s duty to conduct reasonable investigations of disputed information, regardless of whether the information is legal or factual in nature. The decision replaces a “legal vs factual” test with a “readily and objectively” test, aligning with similar rulings from the Second and Eleventh Circuits.
This ruling arises from the case Roberts v. Carter-Young, Inc., in which the plaintiff disputed a debt reflected on her credit report following a disagreement with her landlord. The plaintiff disputed the debt with the consumer reporting agency (CRA), who then notified the collection agency. The collection agency only confirmed the debt with the landlord, prompting the plaintiff to initiate legal action for insufficient investigation.
Although the district court dismissed her claim, the Fourth Circuit reversed that decision. The court indicated that both legal and factual disputes may necessitate investigation if they are “objectively verifiable,” highlighting the importance of making reasonable efforts in verifying disputed information while leaving some ambiguity regarding the precise meaning of “objectively and readily verifiable.”
Click here for the full article.
DOT’s Shift to Oral Fluid Testing Raises Concerns for Trucking Industry
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) introduction of oral-fluid drug testing for marijuana this year may allow truck drivers to use cannabis without being detected immediately, according to Gaize CEO Ken Fichtler. Fitchler explained that oral fluid tests generally have a detection window of about 24 to 48 hours, which means truck drivers could evade testing by not working for a few days after use.
Fichtler raised further concerns that switching to oral fluid testing could lead to increased cannabis use among drivers. Furthermore, Fichtler noted that urine tests can detect drug use for weeks, while saliva tests provide a shorter detection period, making it easier for drivers to use cannabis. He says that the shift to oral fluid testing could compromise roadway safety.
However, an official from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) disputed Fichtler’s claim, stating that cannabis can be detected via oral fluid testing for up to 72 hours. They highlighted that while urine specimens can sometimes be collected under direct observation, oral fluid collections are always directly observed, which can alleviate individual privacy concerns.
Drug experts say oral fluid testing could enhance the effectiveness of drug testing for drivers involved in accidents, as it is less intrusive and quicker than urine testing, ultimately making transportation jobs more accessible.
Click here for the full article.
Miscellaneous Industry News
Importance Of Background Checks in the Era of Artificial Intelligence
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is being utilized more frequently by job applicants, particularly in the creation of AI-generated resumes. These resumes may include inaccuracies, and they are beginning to exhibit greater uniformity as more candidates utilize AI tools for customizing their resumes. However, with a thorough background check process in place, employers can effectively verify the qualifications and credentials of prospective hires. Failure to implement a comprehensive background check process for job candidates could be costly and expose an organization to significant legal risks.
Click here for the full article.
