Utah Division of Motor Vehicles Requirement

January 10th, 2017

Utah Division of Motor Vehicles Requires Organization Identification Number

The Utah Division of Motor Vehicles is releasing a new Motor Vehicle Report and Driver Monitoring Service. The new service ensures proper MVR compliance for all vendors, sub-vendors and customers; as well as offering enhancements such as Medical Certification support for employers. As a part of the transition to the service, Utah DMV requires all vendors and their perspective customers to register for a Utah Organization Identification Number or ORG ID and to select their desired Vendor.

You may request Utah Organization Identification Number registration instructions from A Matter of Fact. The instructions will guide you through the registration process. The registration process must be completed by all customers in order to utilize the UT MVR service.

During the registration process, you will be asked to select a vendor and provide a Vendor ID.

Take Away: Utah Organization Identification Number registration process must be completed by all customers in order to utilize the UT MVR service.

Request Utah Organization Identification Number registration instructions from A Matter of Fact. The instructions will guide you through the registration process. During the registration process, you will be asked to select a vendor and provide a Vendor ID. This can be obtained from A Matter of Fact.

Resources:

A Matter of Fact Phone: 530-346-6626, 800-957-3272 or email  information@amof.info

Utah.gov Phone: 877-988-3468 or email   support@utah.gov

 

Recent “Ban-the-Box” Legislation

January 10th, 2017

According to the National Employment Law Project, “ban the box” laws are in place in more than 24 states and 150 cities and counties. Some of the more recent include:

Portland Oregon Ban-the-Box 

Portland has joined other cities in passing their own ordinance restricting the consideration of a criminal record. These restrictions go beyond the restrictions already in place per the Oregon ban-the-box state law.

Employers cannot inquire about or access criminal record information prior to a conditional job offer.

The follow also cannot be considered by an employer:

  •  • Arrests not resulting in a conviction.
  •  • Expunged and “voided” convictions.
  •  • Deferred adjudications, except for crimes of physical harm or attempted physical harm to another person.

Individual assessment is also required, but it only entails the 3 classic considerations – seriousness of the offense, how long ago it occurred and its relationship to the job.

In addition, the employer must send a notice to the applicant that he/she did not get the job due to the criminal record and provide a copy of the record(s) in question that resulted in the decision not to hire.

Law was effective July 1, 2016.

Missouri Ban the Box 

Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon has signed an executive order that directs state departments, boards and commissions under the executive branch to strip questions about criminal history from the job applications prospective workers first fill out.

Philadelphia Ban the Box 

Philadelphia has amended its Ban-the-Box ordinance: Chapter 9-3500 of the Philadelphia Code. These changes were effective as of March 14, 2016. The following are bullet points regarding the changes in this ordinance.

  •  • The prior law restricted inquires into the criminal history of an applicant until after the first interview.
  •  • Prior law covered employers with 10 or more employees. The new ordinance covers all employers within the city of Philadelphia regardless of size.
  •  • An employer cannot ask whether an applicant is willing to submit to a background check prior to a conditional offer of employment.
  •  • The disclosure notice that criminal records will be sought must contain a statement such as: “consideration of a criminal record will be tailored to the requirements of the job”.
  •  • The ordinance now outlines, much like New York City, what factors must be considered by the employer when assessing the criminal record of the applicant. These are: (a) the nature of the offense; (b) the time that has passed since the offense; (c) the applicant’s employment history before and after the offense and any period of incarceration; (d) the particular duties of the job being sought; (e) any character or employment references provided by the applicant; and (f) any evidence of applicant’s rehabilitation since the conviction.
  •  • Employers may only consider convictions or release from confinement within the last seven (7) years.
  •  • Notice of rejection. The ordinance uses confusing language regarding whether this is intended to be a pre-adverse action or adverse action notice, but it would seem that this is intended to be part of the pre-adverse action notice because the ordinance requires that the applicant be informed that he/she be allowed ten (10) days to provide evidence of inaccuracy of the information or provide an explanation. The notice, like the FCRA, requires a copy of the report be provided to the applicant with the notice.
  •  • Right to sue.  The ordinance now permits private lawsuits for the violation of this ordinance if the individual follows the required administrative steps.
  •  • Posting notice. The Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations will create a notice of rights which each employer must post at their place(s) of employment.

Take Away: Due to the proliferation of “ban-the-box” laws, employers may want to conduct a broader (and privileged) assessment to strengthen their compliance with federal, state and local employment laws which regulate use of an individual’s criminal history. Suggested action items are as follows:

  • Review impacted job advertisements for impermissible language regarding criminal records.
  • Review job applications, including applications embedded within applicant tracking systems, and related forms for impermissible inquiries regarding criminal records.
  • Provide training and FAQs to employees who conduct job interviews and make or influence hiring and personnel decisions to explain permissible and impermissible inquiries into, and uses of, criminal records, and convey protocols for storing such records and documenting related hiring and personnel decisions.
  • Review the hiring process to ensure compliance, including the timing of criminal background checks etc, the distribution of mandatory notices, and the application of mandatory deferral periods.

Resources:

http://www.nelp.org/publication/ban-the-box-fair-chance-hiring-state-and-local-guide/

 

Massachusetts Pay Equity Act – Senate Bill No. 2119

January 10th, 2017

Massachusetts is the first state to enact a law prohibiting an employer from obtaining past salary information. This act prohibitions certain inquiries of the applicant and past employers regarding:

1) past wage/salary history;

2) past benefits;

3) any other past component of compensation.

The Act will become effective on July 1, 2018 giving employers time to evaluate their pay practices and make necessary changes to comply with the law.

Similar measures are being considered in California and New York.

Take Away:

  •  • Review job applications, including applications embedded within applicant tracking systems, and related forms for impermissible inquiries regarding salary.
  •  • Provide training and FAQs to employees who conduct job interviews and make or influence hiring and personnel decisions to explain permissible and impermissible inquiries into, and uses of, salary records, and convey protocols for storing such records and documenting related hiring and personnel decisions.

Resources:

http://www.mass.gov/governor/press-office/press-releases/fy2017/governor-baker-signs-bipartisan-pay-equity-legislation.html

https://www.fisherphillips.com/resources-alerts-pay-equity-becomes-law-in-massachusetts

New York City “Ban-the-Box” Law

November 2nd, 2015

As of October 27, 2015 New York City has joined cities and states across the country by enacting a ban-the-box law. Read the rest of this entry »

New Jersey “Ban-the-Box” Law Applies to Private Employers

September 3rd, 2014

Effective March 1, 2015 most employers with 15 or more employees are restricted as to when they inquire into a job applicant’s criminal history record Read the rest of this entry »

Oklahoma and Louisiana Pass Social Media Privacy Laws

June 23rd, 2014

Oklahoma and Louisiana are the latest states to restrict employer requests for access to personal internet accounts. Read the rest of this entry »

The State of Illinois and City of Rochester N Y “Ban-the-Box”

June 20th, 2014

The State of Illinois and the City of Rochester N. Y. have joined the list of jurisdictions with “Ban-the-Box” restrictions that apply to private employers. Read the rest of this entry »

Wisconsin and Tennessee Restrict Employer Access to Personal Internet Accounts

May 22nd, 2014

Wisconsin and Tennessee join a growing list of states restricting employer requests for access to personal internet accounts. Read the rest of this entry »

New Baltimore “Ban-the-Box” Ordinance Applies to Private Employers

May 21st, 2014

Effective on August 13, 2014 employers with 10 or more full-time equivalent employees in the City of Baltimore will be prohibited from asking job seekers about their criminal record history until a conditional employment offer has been extended. Read the rest of this entry »

New Louisville & Indianapolis “Ban-the-Box” Ordinances Include Vendors

May 8th, 2014

Louisville & Indianapolis join a growing list of cities and counties with “Ban-the-Box” Ordinances that apply to private employers. The Louisville & Indianapolis ordinances do not ban background checks but restrict when an employer can inquire into an applicant’s criminal history. Read the rest of this entry »