The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), who filed the charges, claimed that applicants over 40 years old had been denied jobs at thirty-five Seasons 52 restaurants around the country. The EEOC stated that these actions were in violation with the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and based their claim on more than 135 applicants’ sworn testimony.

Applicants who testified stated that hiring mangers asked their age and made age-related comments during interviews. Alleged statements that applicants were told included that Seasons 52 “wasn’t looking for old white guys” and that they were looking for “fresh” employees with less experience.

Laurie McCann, a senior attorney for the AARP Foundation in Washington D.C. said, “This case is an indication of how far we still need to go when it comes to age discrimination 50 years after the enactment of the ADEA. We are pleased that the EEOC is pursuing these hiring cases. The agency is in a much better position than individuals to go after hiring discrimination.”

Under the ADEA, employers are not allowed to:

-Mention age or state that a certain age is preferred in job advertisements or recruiting materials
-Set age limits for training programs
-Retaliate against you if you file charges of age discrimination
-Force you to retire at a specific age (except for few exceptions)

Seasons 52 is a part of Darden Restaurants, a Fortune 500 company, who also owns Olive Garden, LongHorn Steakhouse, Bahama Breeze, Yard House, and the Capital Grille.

Trail Attorney Kristen Foslid said, “Although ageism is among the most common forms of employment discrimination, applicants who are turned down rarely know the reason why. When an employer has a trend of rejecting older applicants, the EEOC will respond aggressively to combat age stereotypes.”

The post Fortune 500 Company Settles Age Discrimination Lawsuit For $2.85 Million appeared first on Blueline.

The car, while still in auto-pilot at the time of the accident, did have an operator sitting behind the wheel, 44-year-old Rafaela Vasquez.

Lots of speculation and bad press has rained down on Uber since the accident as it was discovered that Vasquez had served almost four years in prison in the early 2000s due to an attempted armed robbery conviction and unsworn falsification.

While the felony conviction does not have a direct correlation to the crash, it has brought Uber’s hiring policies to light and they are currently under active investigation.

Uber’s Legal Past

This isn’t the first time.

Uber has different regulations and laws across the globe and been involved in over 173 lawsuits since November 2015. Many of them due to safety disputes. Their screening provider Checkr has been sued over bad background checks recently as well which has not helped Uber’s situation.

Uber’s hiring policy boasts to help offer convicts a second chance. (Something we strongly support!) But the safety of users and adhering to regulations are also extremely important.

Just a few months ago, the ride-hailing company was under fire for a similar felony problem. The Colorado Public Utilities Commission fined them $8.9 million for hiring 57 drivers with previous felony convictions.

Uber was subject to the fine as Colorado state law prevents individuals with felony convictions, alcohol or drug-related riving offenses, unlawful sexual offenses and major traffic violations from working for ride-share companies.

The company blamed the problem on a error in its background check process, but acknowledged that some drivers had been approved that shouldn’t have been allowed on its service.

As a ride-sharing company, one of app’s users’ main concerns is feeling safe while participating in their services. And employment screening is a huge part of this security.

How Do I Keep Myself And/Or My Company Safe?

Many screening providers rely on automated procedures alone to handle their screening processes, leaving their clients exposed to a multitude of safety and legal risks.

To help avoid finding yourself or your company in a sticky situation like Uber is in currently, it’s so important to have a quality employee screening provider who will run more than just an automated background check.

We know it isn’t easy to keep up with so many different rules and regulations. They are ever-changing and differ from state to state. We understand Uber and Checkr’s frustrations; it isn’t easy work!!

More than seventy-nine percent of employers lose negligent hiring cases and employers are out $81 billion for drug abuse costs every year.

So what should your screening provider be doing?

Make sure that your screening provider (whoever they might be) is professionally reviewing your background checks and drug tests—meaning that your checks aren’t just running through the automated system. After running through the system, every result should be individually reviewed by a screening professional to double-check for accuracy and find any hidden errors.

Another way in which we ensure accuracy is by having a full-time compliance manger who is always checking and updating regulations on our end. Because these regulations are constantly changing, it’s crucial to have someone who is consistently checking for updates.

We’re passionate about quality employment screening because it not only saves you money, time and a serious headache—it also keeps you and everyone around you safe.

The post Uber Under Fire After Fatal Self-Driving Accident appeared first on Blueline.

Whye v. Concentra Health Services, Inc. started in 2013 when two employees filed suit against their testing provider for fraud and invasion of privacy after their employer required them to undergo multiple breath alcohol tests.

The employees claimed that this test violated Maryland’s workplace drug and alcohol testing law because the breath specimen collected was not preserved for potential re-testing at a later time. The testing provider filed a motion to dismiss the employees’ claims.

The court first decided to evaluate whether Maryland testing law even permitted breath alcohol testing.

• They first observed that the law defined specimen appropriate for testing as blood, urine, hair, or saliva, meaning that breath had been excluded from the list.
• Second, they found that the law had been amended twice in the past to add hair and saliva, while four recent attempts to add breath as a specimen had failed.
• Third, they noted that the goal of the law was to allow test subjects to challenge positive test results by requesting another analysis of the same specimen. Something that was not possible with the breath alcohol tests the employees had been submitted to.
• And finally, the testing provider requested a Declaratory Ruling from the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, who administered the testing law, on the legality of breath alcohol testing. The Declaratory Ruling came back stating that “an employer may not require job-related breath testing for alcohol use”.

However, the privacy and fraud claims ended up being dismissed by the court. The court ruled that the employees had failed to establish that they had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their breath or that the testing procedure was highly offensive to a reasonable person.

The fraud claims were dismissed because the employees failed to allege a deliberately false representation made with the intent to deceive from the testing provider. The employees were granted 14 days to amend their fraud claim.

Ultimately, the court ruled that the Maryland drug and alcohol testing law does not allow private employers to require breath alcohol testing of employees. Minnesota is the only other state that also currently prohibits breath alcohol testing.

The post Maryland Establishes Law Against Breath Alcohol Testing appeared first on Blueline.

If certain charges have been previously waived or dismissed it is prohibited by the FCRA for those charges that are no longer applicable to be included in a background check report. By not doing this, a fully-qualified applicant could potentially be passed over.

Federal law also says that if a background check includes information that negatively impacts eligibility for employment, the background checking company must provide a full copy to the consumer.

A large background checking company, recently had to settle a class action lawsuit for violating these terms. Plaintiffs who filed the claim said that this large and careless company “routinely and systematically” violated federal law by failing to provide proper service and comply with federal regulations.

Make sure you fully vet your background check provider. A comprehensive and legal background check is never at bargain basement prices, and it is never without professional review and support. Check us out at the link above, we have you covered.

The post Don’t let your rights be violated appeared first on Blueline.