Flexibility for Form I-9 Physical Presence Requirement Once Again Extended

As part of our COVID-19 Updates, Hire Image previously reported that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was exercising discretion to defer the physical presence requirements associated with the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) for employers and workplaces operating remotely. As such, employers were not required to review the employee’s identity and employment authorization documents in the employee’s physical presence for 60 days.

Those 60 days were extended multiple times and now the extension goes through November 19, 2020.

As a reminder, the Form I-9 must still be completed within three days of hire, regardless of the fact that the in-person requirement is currently waived. Additionally, employees who were onboarded during this period must report to their employer within three business days for in-person verification.

Click here for more information.

Have any questions? Hire Image can help.  Contact us if you have any concerns about this extension.

Hawaii Amends its Ban the Box Law

Hawaii recently amended its Ban the Box law, which had been the first of its kind when it passed in 1998. The amendment is focused on strengthening the protections afforded to ex-offenders by decreasing the look back period from ten years for conviction records. As amended, the look back period is now seven years for felonies and five years for misdemeanors. The amended law is effective immediately.

Click here for more information.

For more information on Ban the Box and other laws, and whether they affect your state, visit our resource guide at the Hire Image Resource Library.

NPDB Queries for Hospitals & Other Healthcare Entities

As a reminder to our healthcare clients, Hire Image  is a registered authorized agent of the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB). The NPDB houses centralized information about medical errors, negligence, and malpractice to reduce healthcare fraud and abuse. As a registered authorized agent, we are permitted to query the NPDB on your behalf for information related to medical malpractice payments and certain adverse actions related to health care practitioners, providers, and suppliers in certain circumstances.

Hospitals must query in the following situations:

  • When a physician, dentist, or other health care practitioner applies for medical staff appointment (courtesy or otherwise) or for clinical privileges, including temporary privileges
  • Every 2 years (biennially) on all physicians, dentists, and other health care practitioners who are on the medical staff (courtesy or otherwise) or who hold clinical privileges
  • When a health care practitioner wishes to add to or expand existing privileges and when a practitioner submits an application for temporary privileges
  • Each time a locum tenens health care practitioner makes an application for temporary privileges
  • On residents and interns when such individuals are appointed to the medical staff or granted clinical privileges to practice outside the parameters of a formal medical education program

Generally, hospitals may also query when the hospital is entering into an employment or affiliation relationship with the health care provider, or when the hospital is engaging in professional review activity.

Other health care entities generally may query the NPDB:

  • When they have or may be entering into employment or affiliation relationships with health care practitioners
  • When health care practitioners apply for clinical privileges or medical staff appointments
  • When they are engaging in professional review activity

Information provided by the NPDB is confidential and not available to the public.

For more information on this service, please contact Laura Goble, Director of Compliance.


FCRA Suit Dismissed – Consumer Failed to Notify of Dispute

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently affirmed an FCRA decision of a Connecticut district court. In Sprague v. Salisbury Bank and Trust Company, the district court dismissed the lawsuit based on FCRA violations when the consumer involved did not notify a credit reporting agency of an alleged error on his credit report. The district court had dismissed the complaint, citing failure to state a claim because the plaintiffs did not allege that they ever notified a consumer reporting agency or that a consumer reporting agency notified the defendant of the dispute. Additionally, the court noted that there is no private right of action under the applicable subsection of the FCRA.

The FCRA has specific notice requirements and steps not only for consumers, but also for consumer reporting agencies. A successful claim must allege that these requirements were met. Hire Image understands the intricacies of the FCRA and can assist with your compliance efforts. Contact us today to learn more.

FTC Seeks Comments on Five FCRA Rules

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is seeking comments on proposed changes affecting the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The purpose of these proposed changes is to bring the FCRA more in line with the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). The proposed changes would “clarify that five FCRA rules promulgated by the FTC apply only to motor vehicle dealers.” According to the FTC press release, the following rules would be affected:

  • Address Discrepancy Rule, which outlines the obligations of users of consumer reports when they receive a notice of address discrepancy from a nationwide consumer reporting agency (CRA);
  • Affiliate Marketing Rule, which gives consumers the right to restrict a person from using certain information obtained from an affiliate to make solicitations to the consumer;
  • Furnisher Rule, which requires entities that furnish information to CRAs to establish and implement reasonable written policies and procedures regarding the accuracy and integrity of the information relating to consumers provided to a CRA;
  • Pre-screen Opt-Out Notice Rule, which outlines requirements for those who use consumer report information to make unsolicited credit or insurance offers to consumers; and
  • Risk-Based Pricing Rule, which requires those who use information from a consumer report to offer less favorable terms to consumers to provide them with a notice about the use of such data.

Additionally, the FTC is seeking comments on the effectiveness of the five rules:

  • whether there is a continuing need for specific provisions of each rule;
  • the benefits each rule has provided to consumers;
  • what modifications, if any, should be made to each rule to benefit consumers and businesses; and
  • what modifications, if any, should be made to each rule to account for changes in relevant technology or economic conditions.

The public has 75 days to comment from the date the proposed changes are published in the Federal Register.

In 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act transferred rulemaking authority for certain sections of the FCRA to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), limiting the FTC’s authority to enact rules. While these particular rule changes apply only to motor vehicle dealers, the CFPB is also reviewing and updating its policy guidance for financial service companies and others in light of COVID-19.

The importance of FCRA compliance cannot be overstated. As such, Hire Image continues to provide the most up-to-date information, as it is made available. Please contact us if you have any questions about the FCRA or your own background screening policy.



Philadelphia Salary History Ban Finally Gets Effective Date

Effective September 1, 2020: Philadelphia employers are prohibited from inquiring about a prospective employee’s wage history, conditioning employment or consideration for an interview on disclosure of wage history, retaliating against a prospective employee for failing to comply with any wage history inquiry, or relying on the wage history of a prospective employee in determining their wages, unless the applicant “knowingly and willingly” disclosed their salary history to the employer.

This has been a long time coming, as this salary history legislation was originally passed in 2017. As we previously posted, the legislation was challenged on First Amendment grounds and later enjoined. In February of this year, a federal court reversed the lower court’s decision. Now, after three years of challenges and injunctions, Philadelphia’s salary history ban will become effective on September 1st.

If they haven’t already, Philadelphia employers should revise their hiring practices, including their job applications, to ensure they are not inquiring about an applicant’s salary history.

For more information, click here for the regulations and FAQs the Chamber of Commerce and the City of Philadelphia drafted.

Original ordinance, as passed in 2017.

For more information on Salary History bans and other laws, and whether they affect your state, visit our resource guide at the Hire Image Resource Library.