SHARE

April 18, 2022

Sands Shift for Background Screening for Manufacturers

You've Reached Your
Free Article Limit This Month
Register for free to get unlimited access to all Law.com OnPractice content.
Register Now

Manufacturers have other reasons to want to know about their workers. Manufacturing employees often operate equipment or control processes that require vigilant attention and where, for example, drug impairment might have severe consequences. In addition, other manufacturing employees have access to large quantities of valuable supplies, making potential theft a costly risk.

Background checks are the traditional means to assist in ensuring quality hires. Background checks are regulated by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The FCRA imposes certain requirements on employers and background check companies, such as providing a stand-alone disclosure form to employees and job applicants at certain times.

In light of continuing workforce shortages and ever-changing legal requirements, manufacturers may find they need to review and change their hiring standards and criteria. In some cases, employers may have relaxed their former standards as being outdated. Regardless of how any manufacturer decides to go about performing background checks, they should keep the following recent developments in mind.

"Ban the Box" Laws Enacted in States and Cities

"Ban the box" laws (also referred to as "Fair Chance Acts") limit employers' access to a job applicant's criminal history. Typically, these laws require employers to consider qualifications first when considering a person's eligibility for employment. Different states, and even some municipalities, have enacted their own requirements. Multi-state employers, therefore, should take care to confirm the requirements of their state and local laws and requirements, if any, before conducting background screening. These laws have grown in popularity.

Employers making decisions based upon a criminal history record are urged to conduct an individualized assessment (and certain jurisdictions have mandated this step).

Further, the federal Fair Chance Act became effective on December 20, 2021, and federal contractors must comply with its requirements.

Drug Screening Guidelines Change for Marijuana

It has been nearly 10 years since Colorado and Washington became the first states to legalize recreational cannabis use. Since then, other states have followed suit, and the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act (MORE Act) on April 1, 2022. The MORE Act is intended to decriminalize cannabis use nationwide and remove cannabis from the federal schedules of controlled substances. It is under consideration by the U.S. Senate.

Regardless of whether the MORE Act becomes law, the legal landscape governing cannabis use has changed significantly in the last decade and will likely continue to shift. For instance, some states that have loosened cannabis restrictions also have enacted laws prohibiting discrimination against employees and job applicants based on their lawful use of cannabis. As states continue to legalize or loosen restrictions on cannabis use, manufacturers should exercise caution and ensure they understand state and local laws governing cannabis use as related to drug and background screening and the treatment of job applicants.

Equal Employment Opportunity

Manufacturers should take steps to ensure their hiring practices comply with federal, state, and municipality equal employment opportunity laws, especially for criminal history. In the past, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has been concerned that even if an employer has a job-related reason for a background check, such a practice may tend to have a disparate impact on protected classes. Employers are always cautioned to review existing "neutral" policies to ensure they do not have a disproportional negative impact on a particular group, to minimize risk of discrimination claims. Further, some automated screening processes using artificial intelligence may inadvertently discriminate unless they are carefully designed.

Manufacturers should closely monitor the impacts their policies may have on applicants to avoid unintentionally disparate outcomes when examining and making hiring determinations based on applicants' backgrounds.


©2022 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Focused on labor and employment law since 1958, Jackson Lewis P.C.'s 950+ attorneys located in major cities nationwide consistently identify and respond to new ways workplace law intersects business. We help employers develop proactive strategies, strong policies and business-oriented solutions to cultivate high-functioning workforces that are engaged, stable and diverse, and share our clients' goals to emphasize inclusivity and respect for the contribution of every employee. For more information, visit https://www.jacksonlewis.com.

ALM expressly disclaims any express or implied warranty regarding the OnPractice Content, including any implied warranty that the OnPractice Content is accurate, has been corrected or is otherwise free from errors.

More From Jackson Lewis P.C.

U.S. Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument on Where Businesses Can Be Sued

By Stephanie L. Adler-Paindiris Jackson Lewis P.C. November 17 , 2022

The constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s “registration statute,” which requires corporations that register to do business in Pennsylvania consent to the “general personal jurisdiction” of Pennsylvania, was the subject of oral argument in the U.S. Supreme Court on November 8, 2022.

U.S. Supreme Court Refuses Review of Case Involving Technical Issue With Plaintiff's EEOC Charge

By Stephanie L. Adler-Paindiris Jackson Lewis P.C. November 16 , 2022

Refusing to weigh in on the impact of a plaintiff’s failure to verify her discrimination charge filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the U.S. Supreme Court lets stand the lower court’s conclusion that the plaintiff’s failure to verify her charge barred her from filing a lawsuit.

Employers Should Note Post-Midterms State Law Changes

By Richard I. Greenberg Jackson Lewis P.C. November 16 , 2022

As the final tally of ballots comes in for many electoral races across the country, the outcomes of the various state ballot measures that were also part of the Nov. 8 midterm elections could require changes to employers’ policies and procedures.

More From Manufacturing

New York State Cannabis Control Board Releases Proposed Adult-Use Regulations

By Lynelle K. Bosworth Greenberg Traurig November 22 , 2022

On Nov. 21, 2022, the New York State Cannabis Control Board (CCB) approved draft regulations governing the Adult-Use Cannabis program.

U.S. Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument on Where Businesses Can Be Sued

By Stephanie L. Adler-Paindiris Jackson Lewis P.C. November 17 , 2022

The constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s “registration statute,” which requires corporations that register to do business in Pennsylvania consent to the “general personal jurisdiction” of Pennsylvania, was the subject of oral argument in the U.S. Supreme Court on November 8, 2022.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Considerations for Real Estate Businesses in an Unpredictable Market

By Thijs Elseman Greenberg Traurig November 17 , 2022

Unpredictable market conditions require innovative solutions to tackle business challenges.

Featured Stories
Closeclose
Search
Menu

Working...