|
|
ArticlesEmployer Beware: The Fair Credit Reporting Act Applies to Employee Misconduct InvestigationsTamara L. Vergara In 1996, Congress passed the Consumer Credit Reporting Reform Act, Public Law 104-208, which broadened the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1681, to include employer investigations into employee misconduct. The Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) statement that employers are subject to the provisions of the FCRA, contained in an opinion letter (Vail, 4/5/99), has employment attorneys, and employers alike, struggling to reconcile compliance with the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681, and Title VII (the federal statutes that govern employee discrimination and harassment investigations), 42 U.S.C.A. Section 2000e, which now clearly are in conflict. While the FTC's position has not been challenged nor upheld by any federal court, employment attorneys must caution their clients to comply with the FCRA's requirements. Failure to do so could cost an employer up to $1,000 in compensatory damages, attorney's fees, court costs, unlimited punitive damages and criminal penalties, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681n(a). The current version of the FCRA contains broader definitions than the original FCRA with regard to "credit reporting agency," "consumer report" and "investigative consumer report," 15 U.S.C. Section 1681a, all of which, at least one individual at the FTC has reasoned, bring employers who hire outside firms to conduct investigations regarding employee misconduct under the expanded umbrella of the FCRA. "Consumer reporting agency" now includes anyone who regularly assembles or evaluates, in whole or in part, information regarding consumers, which the person supplies to third parties, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681a(f). This, according to an FTC opinion letter, may include an attorney, human resources firm or any other outside individual who conducts an investigation regarding employee misconduct for an employer, LeBlanc, 6/9/98. "Consumer report" now includes any communication issued by a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumer's character, general reputation, personal characteristics or mode of living used as a factor to establish the consumer's eligibility for employment, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681a(d)(1). An "investigative consumer report" includes reports detailing a consumer's character, general reputation, personal characteristics or mode of living when such information is obtained from interviews with neighbors, friends, associates or acquaintances of the consumer, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681a(e). Consequently, employer investigations conducted by outside firms, which result in the generation of a report regarding sexual harassment, other forms of harassment, discrimination, retaliation, theft or violence would qualify as investigative reports under the FCRA, as long as such investigations could affect an accused employee's continued employment. Employer Requirements
Employer Problems When an employer complies with the FCRA, it cannot comply with Title VII. As the Supreme Court stated in Burlington Industries, Inc. v Ellerth and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 742, 118 S. Ct. 2257 (1998), the employer must conduct a Title VII investigation promptly and thoroughly, while maintaining confidentiality of the parties to the extent practicable. An employer who complies with the FCRA's disclosure and waiting period requirements cannot possibly comply with these provisions of Title VII. Other problems may result from FCRA compliance as well. The FCRA's requirement that the employer must provide the accused employee with a copy of the investigative report before it takes adverse action against him or her, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(3)(A), may encourage witnesses to refrain from being candid, provide incentive for the accused employee to retaliate against witnesses and increase the employer's exposure to defamation claims. Under such circumstances, the resulting report is not likely to be thorough or unbiased. Additionally, the FCRA's waiting period requires the employer to maintain the guilty employee on its payroll for several days after the completion of the investigation before taking adverse action, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(3), see also Weisberg, 6/27/97. Even more troubling, however, is the FCRA's provision granting the accused employee the right to dispute the results of the initial investigation and request a second investigation, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681i(a)(1), which not only is expensive and time consuming, but further delays justice for any victims involved. Fortunately, if the employer conducts an internal investigation, without hiring outside investigators, it need not comply with the FCRA. But, because some employers lack the expertise to handle their own investigations appropriately under the requirements of Ellerth and Faragher, 524 U.S. 742, 118 S. Ct. 2257, they frequently turn to their attorneys for guidance. Unfortunately, the attorney who conducts an employee misconduct investigation for a client becomes a "consumer reporting agency" under the FCRA and may destroy the attorney-client privilege with regard to client communications. In addition, the attorney risks becoming a witness in the event a lawsuit follows, which would preclude the attorney from representing the employer. Compliance Suggestions However, when the investigation requires the employer to conduct personal interviews regarding the accused employee's character, mode of living and the like (triggering an investigative report to result), the employer still must notify the accused employee, within three days of ordering an outside investigation, that such an investigation is pending, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681d(a)(1)(A). Nevertheless, the Act does not specifically prohibit an employer, who disclosed the possibility of a future investigation and obtained authorization from the employee upon hire, from beginning its investigation three (3) days prior to notifying the employee that an actual investigation is pending. When the employer does notify the accused employee that an investigation is pending, the employer should caution the employee that he or she will be expected to adhere to the employer's policies and procedures, including those forbidding intimidation of and retaliation against victims and witnesses. The employer should further indicate that the safety of other employees must be considered and, as a result, the accused employee's violation of such policies, regardless of the FCRA's notification requirements, will subject him or her to dismissal for cause. By cautioning the accused employee with regard to the rights of others, the employer may reduce the likelihood of intimidation and retaliation. In such a case, however, the employer should seek the guidance of its attorney to ensure maximum compliance with the FCRA and Title VII. The best option, however, is one that allows the attorney and client to avoid the FCRA while building a solid defense under Ellerth and Faragher, 524 U.S. 742, 118 S. Ct. 2257. This option requires the employer to conduct its own misconduct investigation. The attorney's role is to refrain from conducting any part of the investigation, while providing the client with the guidance necessary to properly complete the investigation. The key is for the attorney to provide detailed instruction with regard to prompt, thorough, unbiased investigation techniques while he or she avoids participation in the fact-gathering process and, thus, becoming a witness in a future cause of action. About the Authors: |





