- Class Actions
- Commercial Litigation
- Defective Products
- Drug Injury
- Personal Injury
- Securities Fraud
- Toxic Exposure
- Whistleblower Claims
- Benicar Lawsuit
- Ocella, Yasmin, Yaz
- Sleeping Pills
- Xolair Lawsuit
- Zofran Lawsuit
- Aquafin Inc. Pool Solution
- Aveeno Lawsuit
- Atlas Roofing Lawsuit
- Avon/Clarins Products
- AZEK Decking
- BMW Alloy Wheels
- Carrier Air Conditioners
- Chinese Drywall
- Corrugated Stainless Steel Tubing
- Electrolux Lawsuit
- Energy Drink Lawsuit
- Flushmate Systems
- Ford & Mercury Transmissions
- GAF Decking
- Goodman Air Conditioners
- GM Ignition Switch Defect
- Honda Cars & Takata Airbags
- Lennox Evaporator Coils
- LP/ABTCO TrimBoard
- Marvel Ice Machines
- Maytag Washing Machines
- Norcold Lawsuit
- Pella Designer & Architect Windows
- Pozzi and Jeld-Wen
- Premium Composites
- Rheem Evaporator Coils
- Seamless Steel Siding
- Takata Airbag Recall
- TimberTech Decking
- Triangle Tube Prestige Boiler
- Toyota Prius Tripling Windshield
- Yamaha Boating Motors
- York, Luxaire, Coleman AC
Category : Personal Injury
Companies strive to hire honest employees with strong credentials. In an effort to make informed decisions, employers conduct background checks prior to hiring an employee. These background checks might examine a prospective employee’s employment history, driving record, criminal records, and credit report.
Various laws have been enacted to ensure that the employee is protected throughout this process. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforces the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), which protects a job applicant’s information found in a credit report and ensures that the information is accurate. The extent to which an employer can legally analyze a job applicant’s criminal history varies on a state-by-state basis. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars employers from using job-screening standards that have a disparate racial impact.
Despite these legal safeguards, job applicants are often treated unfairly during the employment hiring phase. Take, for instance, Green Mountain Coffee Co., who allegedly rejected job applicants after examining unauthorized consumer reports (per FCRA guidelines), which they obtained from a consumer-reporting agency. The Judge agreed to dismiss the suit after the parties resolved the dispute in an undisclosed nature. Another example is Dominoes, who also allegedly violated the FCRA by running employee background reports without proper authorization and by not sharing the reports with applicants and employees before terminating employees or denying job applicants of employment. The case is currently in litigation. LexisNexis agreed to settle their dispute for more than $1.3 million. The company was accused of failing to notify timely thousands of individuals about negative background reports because of a computer glitch. In light of these cases, it is fair to anticipate similar suits being filed in the near future.
When companies violate laws or make errors in the background check process, perfectly eligible candidates are denied jobs. Common mistakes include multiple reports of a single offense, the inclusion of convictions and arrests that were legally expunged, and even the inclusion of another person’s criminal offenses. Job applicants can contest any mistake made by employers, but what happens when employers don’t even share the information (like the alleged behavior of Dominoes)? Worse, even if a prospective applicant contests the mistake, the appeal process usually takes about thirty days. The position is often filled by the time the appeal process ends, and the candidate is left without a job even if the appeal succeeds.
As stories of companies acting negligently during employment background checks continue to brew, new legislation will continue to pass limiting the employer’s access to job applicants’ personal information. In May 2012, Vermont became the 8th state to restrict the use of credit reports for employment purposes claiming that the results of a credit report have “no correlation to job performance” and do not provide “meaningful insight into a candidate’s character, responsibility, or prospective job performance.” Vermont joined California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Oregon and Washington to enact such a law. At the federal level, the EEOC is currently investigating the use of credit reports for employment purposes, but has yet to rule on the issue.
Employee Rights When Applying for a Job
It’s become clear that legislative bodies are recognizing the risk of error associated with companies conducting employment background checks. Therefore, it is important that you know your rights when applying for a job.
First, the Fair Credit Reporting Act enables you to get a free copy of your credit report through each of three national credit reporting companies: TransUnion, Equifax and Experian. Each company must provide one free copy of your credit report every twelve months. It might be a good idea to have a current copy of your credit report for your reference before applying for a job.
Second, an employer must get your authorize before obtaining any credit information from third parties. You should probably get this authorization in writing.
Finally, if you have unfortunately been denied employment or had your employment terminated because of a failed background check, an employer must provide you with a written report of the information used to make their decision and a document called “A Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.” You should carefully analyze the information used in their decision, and you have the right to contest any information you believe to be erroneous.
Background Check Lawsuits
Unfortunately, not all employers will follow the law when conducting employment background checks, and Green Mountain and Dominoes are only a sample of how companies might be acting negligently when making employment decisions. Sometimes it takes a legal proceeding to hold large companies accountable and provide employees with a voice to speak out against the wrongdoings associated with background check errors. As such, we are sure to see class action lawsuits develop against more companies
Duerson’s case is unique beyond the circumstances of his suicide. Since 2006, he had served on the six-member panel that considered claims for disability benefits filed by former N.F.L. players.
Although individual votes are kept confidential, that board has been sparing in awarding benefits, including those for neurological damage. Duerson himself told a United States Senate subcommittee in 2007 that he questioned whether players’ cognitive and emotional struggles were related to football.
The N.F.L. has altered its approach to concussions in recent years, changing rules to help limit them and revamping how concussions are handled when they occur. But those efforts cannot turn back the clock for players who sustained irreversible damage decades ago.
Marie Rita Kennedy-Lebar said in a suit filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey that VW and its affiliates have known about but failed to fix headlights that sporadically shut off, exposing drivers to significant danger. The problem occurs in Audi vehicles equipped with an optional high intensity gas discharge headlamp system with xenon bulbs.
VW claims the high intensity gas discharge headlamp systems are superior to halogen headlights, a less expensive option for VW vehicles, because they produce a greater amount of light, consume less power and are intended to last longer.
But while touting the superiority of the product, VW has known that the systems suffer from intermittent failures due to an underlying systemic problem, the suit says.
Kennedy-Lebar is represented by lawyers from Seeger Weiss LLP, including associate Scott George.
“We think it’s going to be a pretty big litigation,” agreed Chris Seeger, a principal at Seeger Weiss, a New York-based personal injury law firm.
DePuy sold about 93,000 ASR Hip Resurfacing Systems and ASR XL Acetabular Systems. The company has reported that about 12 percent of patients required revision surgery within five years after implantation.
Seeger said the problem appears to be with the metal-on-metal design of the device, which “seems not to adhere well in the hip joint.”
“The problem is that if there’s a surgical revision required, the whole thing has to be re-done,” he said. “That’s a nasty, messy surgery.”
If you’re looking for information about the 2012 Stryker hip implant recall, please visit http://www.seegerweiss.com/stryker-hip-recall.
Five years later, the tragic story of the Windsor Wildcat’s deadly bus crash still strikes a cord. National and especially local news outlets have picked up the story of this first verdict awarding damages to three victims of that terrible accident. You can read some of that coverage below.
Windsor Star: “Windsor Wildcats win court battle” (March 10, 2010)
“The verdict demonstrates how seriously the jury was moved by the experiences of having witnessed the deaths of their close friends and teammates,” said Wildcats’ lawyer Moshe Horn. “While these courageous young women and man were fortunate to have survived the crash, their lives haven’t been the same since.”
Windsor Star: “Windsor Wildcats win court battle – Cash cap for crash under appeal” (March 11, 2010)
“We do not understand why Canadian law should apply in a motor vehicle accident in New York,” said lawyer Marc Albert. “We are so confident that New York law applies here, that we think we will prevail.”
Gault said, to her, the monetary sum is irrelevant. “No amount of money is ever going to change what happened.”
Law360: “Jury Awards $2.25M Survivors Of Deadly Bus Crash”
“This probably has been the most painful testimony I’ve seen in my 16-year career as a trial lawyer,” Horn said. “The verdict demonstrates how seriously the jury was moved by their experiences of having witnessed the deaths of their close friends and teammates.”