Legislative Alert: Store Faces Lawsuit for Background Check Policy
In this week's screening news:
- Senators Push for Hair Testing
- Texas Trying to Override Uber Rules
- Macy's Lawsuit over Use of Background Checks
Senators Push for Hair Testing
Lawmakers and transportation companies are getting impatient waiting for guidelines to be set to institute hair sample drug testing for DOT programs. The FAST Act highway bill was passed in December of 2015. It required the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to come up with guidelines so the companies could start instituting hair testing for their drivers instead of just having to rely on urine testing. After all this time, nothing has happened. A December 4, 2016 deadline for HHS came and went with no action. Late last week, five U.S. Senators wrote a letter to HHS Secretary Tom Price asking him to take “swift action” to get these guidelines on the books. Members of the American Trucking Associations (ATA) believe adding hair testing will make the roads safer.
Texas Trying to Override Uber Rules
Last year Uber and Lyft pulled out of Austin, Texas after the city passed a referendum requiring mandatory fingerprint background checks. Now the state legislature has passed a new law that will override the city’s regulations, which many have described as onerous. The state law, which is on the Governor’s desk, still requires ride-share drivers to have a criminal background check, but it will not demand that it be fingerprint based. Both Lyft and Uber are expected to resume operations in Austin as soon as the bill goes into effect.
Department Store Faces Lawsuit
Is Macy’s discriminating against job applicants through its background check program? A nonprofit community-based organization called the Fortune Society has asked the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to investigate. The accusation is that Macy’s system is too broad, which causes them to weed out qualified minority applicants. Attorneys say the system asks applicants to disclose criminal violations that are extremely wide-ranging and asks for records that are exceedingly old. They also allege Macy’s doesn’t adequately account for mitigating circumstances when there are violations to be considered. According to the Fortune Society, the policy has been having a disparate impact on black, Latino and male applicants.