HOW THE FTC INTERPRETS THE FCRA

AND HOW IT AFFECTS INVESTIGATORS

by Eddy L. McClain

 

The most frequent misunderstanding about the FCRA comes about from interpreting  sections independently rather than as a whole.  The fact that it is not permissible to order or provide a consumer report except for a permissible purpose does not help either.  Part of the confusion comes from trying to make one size fit all.  The law, enacted by Congress many years ago, was intended for credit purposes, but through various amendments has been stretched to cover more people and issues.

 

As the FTC Commentary reflects, in order to know if a report is a consumer report, or if the investigator is a consumer reporting agency, “Sections 603 and 604 must be construed together to determine what are permissible purposes . . ..”  Per section 604, consumer reports may only be procured for credit, employment and insurance underwriting purposes.  It is unlawful to order a consumer report for any other purpose.  For example, no one may order a consumer report when investigating an insurance claim.   No one may order a consumer report for pretrial or litigation support or for a background investigation unless the purpose includes extension of credit.

 

But investigators often read 603 by itself and jump to the conclusion that they are a consumer reporting agency and their reports are consumer reports because they contain information about the subject’s “ . . .character, general reputation, personal characteristics or mode of living . . ..”  These definitions only apply if the report is for a “permissible purpose.”  If the report is for investigation of an insurance claim, litigation, non-employment background etc., then it is not for a `permissible purpose,’ it is not a consumer report and the investigator is not a consumer reporting agency. 

 

It is because investigations of insurance claims, non-employment backgrounds and litigation support (to name a few) are not covered by the FCRA that companies like Choicepoint have painstakingly compiled databases from non-consumer report information.  In that way, the data providers can sell the information to investigators and government agencies for uses other than employment, credit or insurance underwriting.

 

Nearly every investigation that touches on employment in any way, is covered by the FCRA.  But section 603 defines employment purposes as “ . . . evaluating a consumer for employment, promotion, reassignment or retention as an employee.”  Although a work  injury occurs during employment, the FTC says that if the investigation is for the purpose of determining the validity of the workers’ compensation claim, the report is not for one of the above four definitions of employment purposes, and is not a consumer report.

 

Most employment investigations require the employer to obtain the employee’s permission in advance after making a separate notification of the employee’s  rights under the FCRA.  One exception is a surveillance or undercover where the report consists solely of the investigator’s observations (603 (d)(2)(A)(i).  This falls under an exception for “transaction and experiences” which has recently been supported by a federal court decision in Shane Salazar v. Golden State Warriors, U.S.District Court, Northern District of California, No. C 99-4825 CRB, November 9,2000.

 

                                                                        2

 

It is unlawful to mix consumer report information and non-consumer report information in a report.  Moreover, if you subscribe to an IRSG-type data provider, your User Agreements will specify the purposes for which the information may be used.  For this reason, it is strongly recommended that investigators keep accurate logs of all information purchased from the data providers so the records may easily be audited to prove the information has been used properly. 

 

Pre-employment investigations or most other types of employment investigations are consumer reports and the client must certify to the investigator that the employee’s rights under the FCRA have been disclosed and the employee has provided written permission for the employer to secure a consumer report.  If the employer client (whether or not represented by an attorney) takes adverse action against the employee based in whole or in part on the information contained in the consumer report, the employer is required to provide a complete copy of the report to the employee.  Although section 609 (a)(2) says it is not necessary to reveal sources of information, the employer is required to provide a complete, unredacted copy of the report.  Of course, the report would be incomplete without disclosing the sources of information.  Hence the dilemma.  Oral reports are covered too.  It is unlawful for the employer not to provide the disciplined employee with a complete copy of the report, written or verbal.

 

An investigative consumer report is merely one that contains information about the subject derived from interviews with other persons.  All of the rules that apply to consumer reports also apply to investigative consumer reports, along with a few more disclosure requirements.  Most of these affect the employer rather than the consumer reporting agency, but the agency may not report record information on things like arrests, indictments, convictions, tax liens or outstanding judgments unless the information has been verified within the last 30 days.  The investigator must make an effort to verify information adverse to the employee or be sure “the person interviewed is the best possible source of the information.”

 

All investigators need to know about the FCRA, whether their work makes them consumer reporting agencies or not.  A copy of the Act as amended through 07-99 can be obtained at http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra.htm.  Investigators who do not keep separate logs of information accessed and for what purpose, risk being unable to comply with future audits of their files.  In the past, successful firms have nearly been put out of business by having to laboriously search their files to prove proper use of information.

 

Write your congressional Representatives today and ask that they support and join as co-sponsors of HR 1543, the Civil Rights and Employee Investigation Clarification Act by Rep. Pete Sessions

Go to Legislative page at NCISS web site, www.nciss.org for a sample letter

 

The author is Chairman of Krout & Schneider, Inc., a 75-year-old investigation firm headquartered in Glendora, California.  He has been a licensed investigator for 46 years and is a Director and Past President of the National Council of Investigation & Security Services and Past President of the California Association of Licensed Investigators.  The opinions in this article are his own and should not be relied upon in the absence of advice from your attorney.