On January 21, 2020, the Oakland City Council unanimously passed the Fair Chance Housing Ordinance (“FCHO”), which will restrict landlords in their ability to reject a potential tenant because of prior criminal history. It also impacts background check companies that offer a tenant screening product (“consumer reporting agencies”) because they will have to modify their
Pamela is a partner in the Labor and Employment Practice Group of Seyfarth Shaw LLP. She specializes in all aspects of employment defense including counseling, training, and litigation. Ms. Devata’s employment litigation practice includes state and federal court cases involving allegations of sex, race, and national origin discrimination and harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and state laws, allegations of retaliation, allegations of disability discrimination and reasonable accommodation issues under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and state statutes, allegations of age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), allegations of discrimination under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and wage and hour disputes. She also has extensive experience with employment litigation in administrative agencies.
The Ninth Circuit Demands Simplicity: Background Check Disclosure Forms That Contain State-Law Notices or Improper Grammar Violate the FCRA
Seyfarth Synopsis: As part of an evolving trend of narrowly interpreting the FCRA’s “standalone” disclosure and “clear and conspicuous” disclosure requirements, the Ninth Circuit has held that users of consumer reports may violate the FCRA and ICRAA by including “extraneous” state law notices and potentially “confusing” language in background disclosure forms.
Both the Fair Credit…
Spokeo v. Robins: The U.S. Supreme Court Finds Concrete Injury Is Required Under Article III But Remands Back To The Ninth Circuit
Also By Robert T. Szyba, and Ephraim J. Pierre
Seyfarth Synopsis: In deciding Spokeo v. Robins, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that plaintiffs seeking to establish that they have standing to sue must show “an invasion of a legally protected interest” that is particularized and concrete — that is, the injury “must actually…
How To Tell A Mountain From A Molehill: Ninth Circuit Ponders Article III’s “Injury-In-Fact” Requirement In FCRA Case
“Injury-in-fact is not Mount Everest,” Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito once opined. The threshold to establish constitutional standing — which requires that plaintiffs establish an “injury-in-fact” — is low; so low that in most types of lawsuits, plaintiffs have no trouble scaling the requirement. While standing may not be Mount Everest, in consumer privacy lawsuits,…