A job search is tough enough without having to worry that a potential employer is getting a little too nosy.

Obviously, employers (as well as landlords and others) need some background information from applicants, particularly for certain types of jobs. But there are — and should be — limits. A recent California Supreme Court decision came down on the side of job seekers, clarifying more comprehensive protection of the handling of their personal information.

In California, two main laws govern what information potential employers can dig into and how they must handle it: the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA) and the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRAA). The stricter ICRAA deals with investigative consumer reports, which are about personal information such as character, characteristics, reputation, and lifestyle. The latter specifically governs consumer credit reports.

At issue was how an employer must handle queries that arguably could fall under either law. Is it okay to choose to comply with the less stringent one?

The court said no. In Connor v. First Student, the court determined that employers must handle information that could fall under either law by complying with both.  Eileen Connor was a bellwether plaintiff in the case, which coordinated several lawsuits against First Student that covered more than 1,200 plaintiffs.

Here’s how the dispute played out:

Connor, a school bus driver, became a First Student employee after the company bought out her former employer. Following the acquisition, First Student sought background checks on all the drivers and aides new to its payroll.

HireRight, the company engaged to do the background checks, gave First Student investigative consumer reports that included criminal record checks, searches of sex offender registries, address history, driving records, employment history, and other information that could relate to employment.

Prior to the background checks, First Student sent out notices about the reports, offering employees a chance to see copies and including an authorization and release for First Student and HireRight from any damages caused by the background checks.

The ICRAA requires entities performing/seeking a consumer report to first get written authorization from the subject, unless that person is suspected of wrongdoing or misconduct. Other requirements include offering the subject a copy of the report and, if the report sparks adverse actions against someone, both letting that person know and providing contact information for the company that conducted the investigation. The act specifically states that it does not apply to reports containing only credit information.

While the CCRAA applies to credit reports that also include character-related information, it excludes information obtained through personal interviews.

Those seeking a consumer report must follow the acts’ requirements to avoid liability for any actual or punitive damages suffered by the consumer.

Connor contended that the notice she received didn’t comply with ICRAA requirements and that she didn’t give written authorization for a background check.

First Student argued that it sought information that fell under both laws, so it couldn’t determine which one to follow, making the ICRAA unconstitutionally vague.

The court disagreed, saying that if information falls under both acts, the employer/investigator must comply with both.

What does this mean for you?

First, be aware of your rights. Just because a potential employer seeks a background check doesn’t mean you have to blindly go along with whatever they do. There are limits.

Second, knowing the way entities must go about handling that information can protect you, especially if a background check sparks negative consequences.

If you have questions or concerns, don’t ignore them. Call Keller Grover at 866-663-3308 for a free consultation. We have recovered billions for our clients in more than 25 years litigating