April 10 Labor & Employment Law Update

Written by: Crystal M. O'Brien, Esq.

California Update: Sex Offender Registries & Pre-Employment Screening

If you’ve ever relied on a third-party company to conduct pre-employment background screenings, you’ll find this case very interesting.  On appeal from a Los Angeles County Superior Court civil trial, plaintiff William Mendoza attempted to revive a lawsuit brought against ADP Screening and Selection Services for disclosing to his prospective employer that he was a registered “sex offender”.  The information was gleaned by ADP from California’s Megan’s Law webpage which informs users that any prohibited “use” of information to interfere with employment could result in civil penalties.  The appellate court reviewing the matter disagreed that Mendoza was a member of a protected class for purposes of Fair Employment laws and that the “use” (or misuse) contemplated by California’s sex offender registry laws did not bar third parties like ADP from disclosing information sought for conducting pre-employment background checks. 

To read the full opinion, click Mendoza v. ADP.

Federal Update: EEOC Prosecutes PEO and Employer For Religious Discrimination

In EEOC v. Adminstaff (USDC NDMD 2010) no. 1:09-cv-02881-BEL, co-employment came under scrutiny for failing to prevent an apparent workplace campaign involving numerous employees of Conn-X a cable company from bullying two employees based on their belief in Judaism.  The EEOC describes: “What happened to these workers was cruel and callous, involving physical mistreatment, as well as hateful religious slurs and anti-Semitic symbols [including a swastika],” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. The case was ultimately settled but the message sent to employers and human resources outsourcing companies is to take seriously claims alleging hostile work environment.

To read more, click here.

Go back to MMC April 10 HR E-Newsletter

MMC HR E-Newsletter Archive

MMC Human Resources Tips