The California Supreme Court on Monday ruled for a class of current and former bus drivers who claimed their employer performed unauthorized background checks, sharpening the compliance guidelines for companies and resolving tension in lower courts over two state laws that cover some of the same ground.

The state Supreme Court, in the case Connor v. First Student, addressed the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, or ICRAA, and a separate law called the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, or CCRAA. The court rejected arguments that the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act was unconstitutionally vague.

Both laws regulate agencies that gather information about consumers to provide to employers, landlords and others for employment and housing considerations. The ICRAA, which has stricter obligations, governs the use of reports about a consumer's character and general reputation. The CCRAA governs consumer credit issues. Both require agencies to disclose to consumers when the reports are furnished and limit when they may be used.

“In interpreting ICRAA and CCRAA, we agree with the Court of Appeal and find that potential employers can comply with both statutes without undermining the purpose of either,” Associate Justice Ming W. Chin wrote for the court. “If an employer seeks a consumer's credit records exclusively, then the employer need only comply with CCRAA. An employer seeking other information that is obtained by any means must comply with ICRAA.”

➤➤ Get employment law news and commentary straight to your in-box with Labor of Law, a new Law.com briefing. Learn more and sign up here.

The court said that, if information revealed in an “ICRAA background check contains a subject's credit information and the two statutes thus overlap, a regulated party is expected to know and follow the requirements of both statutes, even if that requires greater formality in obtaining a consumer's credit records.”

The court said in its ruling: “It seems to us that such a duality does not make legal compliance particularly difficult, much less impossible.”

The class of bus drivers, led by named plaintiff Eileen Connor, sued school bus transportation provider First Student Inc. and First Transit Inc. over their background checks, which provided the company with reports that included information such as criminal record, sex offender registry searches, driving records and employment histories.

Connor and her fellow drivers claimed in the class action lawsuit that the company did not inform the workers about the investigative reports. The Supreme Court upheld an appeals court ruling that favored the plaintiffs.

A team from Littler Mendelson in San Jose and San Francisco represented First Student. Lawyers for the companies did not immediately respond to request for comment.

The bus drivers were represented by Hunter Pyle Law and a team from Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow. Hunter Pyle, a lawyer for Connor, said in an email Monday: “Unauthorized background checks can be devastating to workers, tenants, and consumers. We are glad that the Court upheld California's background check statutes, and look forward to pursuing justice for our clients who have waited a long time for this ruling.”

Catha Worthman of Feinberg, Jackson said the Supreme Court “reaffirmed the general rule of statutory interpretation that employers and other entities must follow all the laws that govern their conduct, not pick and choose.”

Worthman said a contrary holding would have “wreaked havoc on many other areas of law, such as environmental and civil rights law, where there are often parallel and overlapping remedies available to protect worker and consumer rights.”

 

The ruling in Connor v. First Student is posted below:

 

Read more:

Calif. Supreme Court Finds Federal 'De Minimis' Rule Doesn't Apply to Wage Laws

Labor Groups Urge 9th Circuit to Revive Microsoft Gender Class Action

PwC Defeats Class Motion in Age Bias Case, but Plaintiffs Get Second Shot

Uber's Lawyers Hail Supreme Court's Ruling Against Worker Class Actions