A Transformational Time for Employment Law: A Q&A With HireRight's Alonzo Martinez
Alonzo Martinez, associate counsel of compliance at Irvine, California-based HireRight gave Corporate Counsel his take on some of the most vexing employment law issues for companies today.
March 21, 2018 at 05:52 PM
5 minute read
Alonzo Martinez, associate counsel of compliance at HireRight, sits in a rather unique position—he's an in-house lawyer who works for a company that provides services essential to other in-house lawyers.
Irvine, California-based HireRight provides employee background checks, background screenings and drug testing for companies around the world, helping many a legal and HR department decide who to hire and retain, while also remaining compliant with employment and privacy laws.
Martinez, who was formerly in-house at First Data Corp., recently shared some of his insights with Corporate Counsel on these evolving employment law regimes and how his own business has made adjustments along with these changes. The conversation has been edited for clarity and length.
Corporate Counsel: I've heard a lot of talk with President Donald Trump taking office that we would be seeing less federal employment law action and therefore states would fill that legal void.
Alonzo Martinez: I would definitely say that the 2017 legislative season was absolutely a formidable year for employers from a compliance perspective. We most certainly saw states step in and create several new laws. But while a formidable year for employers, it was also a transformational year for candidates and employees with respect to their rights. We've seen a completely new area of the law develop, which is pay equity law, salary history bans, something that hasn't been considered before. It was brought up in 2017 and is by far the hottest topic in employment law at this point. And again, this is something that was accomplished at the state level and that really hasn't been addressed at the federal level. Same is true with ”ban the box.”
CC: As for pay equity, there is a whole patchwork of recent state and local laws, some of which limit companies' abilities to ask job candidates about past salary, often until very late in the hiring process. Has HireRight changed its approach to providing pre-employment screening services accordingly?
AM: HireRight very early on adopted a position with respect to pay equity. So in advance of the first pay equity law to go online in the United States, which was New York City's law, which became effective Oct. 31, 2017, HireRight met with many of our clients in New York City, and roundtabled this concept of pay equity … And the overwhelming consensus from our clients was: there simply was no value to asking a candidate about their previous compensation history as part of the background check process.
So as a standard in advance of the New York City pay equity effective date, HireRight notified its clients that as a standard practice for clients using our background check program we were no longer going to ask candidates about their compensation history, nor were we going to validate or report on their candidates' compensation history with their former employers. So we've done that across the board regardless of whether or not a jurisdiction has passed a pay equity measure.
Now for clients that do find it valuable to ask about compensation history for one reason or another, they can certainly ask that we enable that functionality for them, meaning that we will ask their candidates for their compensation history and we will validate their compensation history. But we will not do that in any jurisdiction that's enacted a pay equity law.
CC: HireRight deals with employment screenings around the world and the varied legal regimes that go with that. I'm curious as to what U.S. rules around hiring look like as compared to other jurisdictions?
AM: In the U.S. we're very lucky, I suppose, to have a very well-defined regulation. The Fair Credit Reporting Act defines “background screening” both for consumer reporting agencies like HireRight as well as for employers who engage consumer reporting agencies to provide information on their candidates. And the Fair Credit Reporting Act has been around for well more than 40 years and has well-established [Federal Trade Commission] opinions that provide guidance as well as case law that provides guidance. That doesn't mean that it's the easiest regulation to comply with, it certainly produces its own challenges for employers, but at least there is a regulation. Outside of the Untied States, background screening is not codified really in one particular source of law. So multinational employers have to look at patchwork of laws in determining what defines their background screening program.
CC: HireRight offers drug testing services. Have you seen the recent relaxation of state marijuana laws affecting companies and workplaces?
AM: We're continuing to see clients express interest in drug testing. That certainly hasn't slowed down despite the increased number of states and local municipalities that are passing either recreational or medicinal marijuana laws. I think that because there is such a myriad of laws out there and because we have Attorney General [Jeff] Sessions stating that the federal government isn't going to back down on enforcement of marijuana laws, it really is important for employers at this point to simply know the marijuana laws that they are subject to and discuss those laws internally with their internal counsel and externally with their external counsel, as applicable.
Maine really throws a wrench into this entire thing, you know, what Maine has done is really just incredible … What they've done is they've shielded workers from adverse employment action based on their extracurricular use of marijuana, so an employer could not then either deny a candidate for hire or discipline an existing employee based on their extracurricular use. It's the first time we've seen this in state law and it's certainly a dramatic shift from every other state that has offered far more employer-friendly laws with respect to accommodation of marijuana.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMicrosoft's Banner Year Pushed Brad Smith's Pay Sharply Higher
Big Tech to Big Law: Is the Compensation Gap Closing?
Anglo American GC: 'Maybe Partners Should Make Less Money and Associates Should Make More'
In-House Counsel Saw Pay Rise Over Past Year, Despite Drop in Job-Hopping
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250