May

"The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued new guidance that is going to require all single-family and multifamily rental professionals to revisit their policies. In a decision that is aimed at protecting the rights of ""returning citizens,"" HUD is limiting the use of arrest records in tenant screening nationwide for both public and private housing. While they are not discouraging the use of criminal records in the background screening process, they are requiring a conviction be reported for the record to be considered in the decision. Using an arrest record without a conviction is being viewed as discriminating against a consumer who has not been found guilty of having done anything illegal. A housing provider with a policy or practice of excluding individuals because of one or more prior arrests (without any conviction) cannot satisfy its burden of showing that such policy or practice is necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest."

Within the past year, one Wisconsin resident has filed several class-action lawsuits against Wisconsin employers. In each case, the plaintiff filed a class-action lawsuit against the employer in Wisconsin federal court on the grounds that the employers had violated the FCRA by not providing a proper disclosure. In both cases, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, yet, the district court judges in each case concluded that including a liability release on the same document as the disclosure was a violation of the express language of the FCRA. Both courts noted that the FCRA, by its terms, requires that the clear and conspicuous disclosure appear by itself on the document, with the only exception being the consumer's authorization for the report. All Wisconsin employers are encouraged to review their employment applications with regard to such disclosures.

"Uber agreed to pay up to $25 million to settle a 2014 lawsuit filed by city officials in San Francisco and Los Angeles who argued that the ride service gave customers a ""false sense of security"" by touting its background checks as the toughest in the industry. The suit, brought by San Francisco District Attorney George Gasc�n and Los Angeles District Attorney Jackie Lacey, alleged that Uber misled consumers by suggesting its driver-screening process was superior to the ones used by taxi companies. Taxi drivers are vetted with fingerprint checks, whereas Uber drivers are not. The suit also questioned Uber 's compliance with California laws regarding airport rides and fare calculation. Uber will pay $10 million within 60 days. The remaining $15 million penalty will be waived in two years if Uber complies with all of the settlement 's terms. ""It sends a clear message to all businesses, and to startups in particular, that in the quest to quickly obtain market share, laws designed to protect consumers cannot be ignored,"" said Gasc�n."