By Anthony J. Oncidi
Anthony J. Oncidi is a partner in and the Chair of the Labor and Employment Department of Proskauer Rose LLP in Los Angeles, where he exclusively represents employers and management in all areas of employment and labor law. His telephone number is (310) 284-5690 and his email address is aoncidi@proskauer.com. (Tony has authored this column without interruption for every issue of this publication since 1990.)
Connor v. First Student, Inc., 239 Cal. App. 4th 526 (2015)
Eileen Connor worked as a school bus driver for Laidlaw Education Services. After First Student acquired Laidlaw, it hired a third party agency (Agency) to conduct background checks on Connor and all other former Laidlaw school bus drivers and aides. Before conducting the background checks, First Student sent to each employee a "Safety Packet" that included a notice that an investigative consumer report might be requested by the Agency. In her lawsuit, Connor alleged that the notice she received did not satisfy the specific requirements of the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA) and that First Student did not obtain her written authorization for the background check as required by the statute. The trial court granted First Student's motion for summary judgment based on an earlier opinion of the California Court of Appeal. The court in this opinion refused to follow the earlier opinion and held that the Agency, as an investigative consumer reporting agency, was required to comply with the applicable provisions of the ICRAA despite the possible applicability of another statute governing consumer credit reports (the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act).
France v. Johnson, 784 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2015)
John France, a border patrol agent assigned to the Tucson Sector Border Patrol, applied for a promotion to Assistant Chief Patrol Agent (GS-15 pay grade). Of the twenty-four eligible candidates, France was the oldest (age 54). Although France was among the top twelve candidates invited for interviews in Washington, DC, he was not among the top six who received final consideration for the position. In response, France sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Although the district court found that France had established a prima facie case of age discrimination, he did not demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the agency's...
