BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 22 Page 1 Date of Hearing: May 4, 2011 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Felipe Fuentes, Chair AB 22 (Mendoza) - As Amended: March 8, 2011 Policy Committee: JudiciaryVote:6-4 Labor 5-1 Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: SUMMARY This bill prohibits an employer from using a consumer credit report for employment purposes, except: 1)Where the information contained in the report is substantially job related, meaning that the position has access to money, other assets or confidential information; and 2)If the person for which the information is being sought is a manager, a position in the Department of Justice, a sworn peace officer or other law enforcement position, a position for which the information contained in the report is required to be disclosed by law or to be obtained by the employer. 3)If the person or business is subject to the federal Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (governing financial institutions) and the person or business is subject to compliance oversight by a state or federal regulatory agency with respect to those laws. FISCAL EFFECT Minor annual costs (less than $50,000) to the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement within the Department of Industrial Relations to investigate complaints regarding potential violations of the bill's provisions. COMMENTS 1)Background . Credit reporting activities are regulated by federal and state law. The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) regulates how employers may use consumer reports. For AB 22 Page 2 example, the FCRA requires that the employer notify the applicant and obtain consent for the background check. If an adverse decision is made based upon the background check, the employer must provide the applicant notice of the adverse decision and the name, address, and telephone number of the consumer reporting agency making the report. The employer is also required to give the employee a copy of the report and information on how to dispute the contents of the report. California's Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRAA), the state's counterpart to the FCRA, generally regulates consumer credit reporting agencies. Among other things, the CCRAA requires every consumer credit reporting agency to allow a consumer, upon request and with proper identification, to visually inspect all files pertaining to him or her that the agency maintains at the time of the request. The CCRAA permits consumers to dispute inaccurate information and requires a consumer credit reporting agency to reinvestigate disputed information without charge. In the past, generally only banks and financial service companies routinely ran credit checks on potential employees. But employers in other sectors increasingly are including credit checks in the screening process presumably to assess applicants' honesty and integrity, among other traits. 2)Purpose . Supporters (several labor unions and consumer organizations) argue that a person's credit score says nothing about their character or ability to do a job effectively and responsibly. Second, they note that credit reports often contain errors that could negatively impact innocent subjects of those reports. Third, supporters contend the use of credit reports for employment purposes disproportionately impacts female and minority workers typically concentrated in low-wage jobs. Finally, several proponents assert that it is particularly unfair to allow employers to perform credit checks on job applicants in the midst of such a severe economic downturn. 3)Opposition . A coalition of business interests argue that, while an individual's credit history by itself is not predictive of potential theft, access to credit information can reveal patterns that may present an unreasonable risk to businesses resulting from an irresponsibility with regard to, or inability to, handle personal financial commitments. The AB 22 Page 3 opposition further asserts that this bill prohibits employers from performing their due diligence in screening applicants, thus subjecting employers to a greater risk of inadvertently violating the law or being subject to frivolous employment litigation. This risk is compounded by the fact that, in most situations, employers are liable for the actions of employees in the performance of their job duties, so an employee may take actions that bring an unacceptable level of liability on their employer. 4)Prior legislation . This measure is similar, but not identical to, AB 482 (Mendoza) of 2010, AB 943 (Mendoza) of 2009, and AB 2918 (Lieber) of 2008, all of which were vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger, who in general argued that current law provides adequate protection for employees in this regard and that the bills increase businesses' exposure to civil actions over the use of credit checks and increase administrative costs to employers who must legitimately use credit reports as a screening tool. Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081