|
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580
Division of Financial Practices
April 5, 1999
Judi A. Vail, Esq.
1111 Main Street, Suite 604
Vancouver, Washington 98660
|
Re:
|
Sexual Harassment Investigations
and the Fair Credit Reporting Act; Sections 603(e), 603(f),
603(k)(1)(B)(ii), and 604(b)(3)(A) of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act. |
Dear Ms. Vail:
This is in response to your letter posing two questions concerning
the application of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to sexual
harassment investigations. You note, by way of context for your
inquiries, that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) prohibits
discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion,
sex or national origin, and that under Title VII an employer has
specific obligations, including the obligation to investigate
allegations of sexual harassment in the workplace. If harassment
is found to have occurred, appropriate corrective or disciplinary
action may be taken. We agree with your assessment that such action
could reasonably be defined as an adverse employment decision
under Section 603(k)(1)(B)(ii) of the FCRA. That section provides
that "adverse action" means "a denial of employment
or any other decision for employment purposes that adversely affects
any current . . . employee."
1. Application of Section 603(f) or 606 to outside organizations
that regularly engage in assisting employers with investigations
for a fee if the scope of their investigation does not exceed
the employer's workforce or company documents. (Would investigatory
information compiled solely from employees and documents within
the workplace be defined as a consumer report or investigative
consumer report?)
The relevant inquiry here is not whether the scope of the investigation
goes beyond the employer's workforce or internal documents. Section
603(f) of the FCRA defines a consumer reporting agency (CRA) as
any person which, for monetary fees, "assembles or evaluates"
credit information or other information on consumers for the purpose
of regularly furnishing "consumer reports" to third
parties using any means or facility of interstate commerce. A
"consumer report" is, in turn, defined in Section 603(d)(1)
as a report containing information bearing on an individual's
"character, general reputation, personal characteristics,
or mode of living" that is used or expected to be used for
the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumer's
eligibility for, among other things, employment. From the information
in your letter, it seems reasonably clear that the outside organizations
utilized by employers to assist in their investigations of harassment
claims "assemble or evaluate" information. See the fuller
discussion of this issue under point one in the enclosed staff
opinion letter (LeBlanc, 6/9/98).
Thus, once an employer turns to an outside organization for assistance
in investigation of harassment claims in the manner outlined in
your letter, the assisting entity is a CRA because it furnishes
"consumer reports" to a "third party" (the
employer). For purposes of determining whether the entity is a
CRA, the FCRA does not distinguish whether the information on
consumers is obtained from "internal" records or from
outside the employer's workplace. The source and scope of information
does enter into a determination of whether the information
is a "consumer report" or an "investigative consumer
report."
An "investigative consumer report" is defined in Section
603(e) of the FCRA as "a consumer report . . . in which information
on a consumer's character, general reputation, personal characteristics,
or mode of living is obtained through personal interviews with
neighbors, friends, or associates of the consumer reported on
or with others with whom he is acquainted or who may have knowledge
concerning any such items of information." I have enclosed
a staff letter (Hinkle, 7/9/98)
that discusses the considerations involved in analyzing the application
of this section. From the limited facts outlined in your letter,
it would appear that the reports prepared by outside organizations
performing harassment investigations for employers are most likely
"investigative consumer reports" within the meaning
of the FCRA. As your letter recognizes, employers who utilize
consumer reports or investigative consumer reports have certain
obligations under the FCRA to notify employees and/or supply a
copy of the report to the employee. (See generally Hawkey,
12/18/97; copy attached.)
2. When a consumer or investigative consumer report is released
pursuant to Sections 604(b)(3), 615(a) or 606(a)(1)(B) by the
employer or consumer reporting agency, to what degree may the
information be redacted?
Information cannot be redacted in those instances in which the
FCRA requires that the consumer be provided a copy of a consumer
report (Section 604(b)(3)(A)). I enclose a copy of a prior staff
opinion letter (Hahn, 7/8/98)
which explicates this requirement more fully. I also note that
the staff has taken the position that an employer who uses investigative
consumer reports must comply fully with the provision of the FCRA
that apply generally to "consumer reports" (such as
Sections 604(b) and 615(a)),(1)
as well as the provisions that apply specifically to investigative
consumer reports (Section 606). (Beaudette,
6/9/98; copy attached.)
I hope that this information is helpful to you.
The views expressed herein are the views of the Commission staff
and are advisory in nature. They do not necessarily reflect the
views of the Commission or of any particular Commissioner.
Very truly yours,
Christopher W. Keller
Attorney
1. You refer to a staff letter
(Weisberg, 6/27/97), that
responded affirmatively to an inquiry as to whether an employer
would comply with the requirement in Section 604(b)(3) that it
make certain disclosures to the consumer "before" taking
any adverse action, if it waited five days to take the action.
That letter specifically stated that "the facts of any particular
employment situation" controls the appropriate waiting period,
which would likely be much shorter in the case of an employer
who was taking required action to remedy sexual harassment.
|