Legislative Alert: New Honolulu Rule | Avis FCRA Suit | Waffle House FCRA Suit [Video]
- Honolulu Medical Marijuana Users: Turn in your Guns!
- Avis Agrees to Pay Millions to Settle Adverse Action Case
- Waffle House Facing FCRA Class Action
Honolulu Medical Marijuana Users: Turn in your Guns!
The Honolulu Police Department is sending out letters to legal medical marijuana users telling them they have 30 days to turn in their guns. The letter says, “Your medical marijuana use disqualifies you from ownership of firearms and ammunition.” The decision to send the letters came after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decided that banning marijuana users from owning firearms did not infringe on their 2nd Amendment rights. Medical marijuana has been legal in Hawaii since 2000, but this is the first time patients have been told they can no longer legally own a gun. A spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) says the fact that marijuana is still illegal under federal law trumps any laws passed by the states.
Avis Agrees to Pay Millions to Settle Adverse Action Case
Car rental company Avis has agreed to pay $2.7 million to settle a lawsuit over alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Angela Fuller, the named plaintiff in the case, claimed she was turned down for a job after the company doing Avis’s background checks not only illegally reported a 28-year-old traffic violation, but failed to give her a copy of the report, a copy of her rights or any proper adverse action notice. According to the proposed settlement, Avis will pay the 45,000 members of the class between $20 and $695 depending on how they were impacted by the adverse action mistakes.
[Related Article] FCRA Compliance: What You Need to Know
Waffle House Facing FCRA Class Action
As one FCRA case winds down, another is just picking up steam. Former job applicants for Waffle House have consolidated 23 complaints into a class action suit. The plaintiffs claim Waffle House denied them employment without giving them a chance to correct information on their background checks. They also claim the company failed to disclose that they were conducting checks, and later failed to provide them with copies of their background reports and the required FCRA Summary of Rights document.