Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Employee Privacy S90 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senator introduces bill to restrict employer credit checks, criminal-history screening and drug tests until job offer
Summary
Senate members heard an overview of S.90, which would limit when employers may obtain applicants' credit reports, criminal-history information and drug tests. The bill narrows pre-employment inquiries to conditional job offers and keeps exceptions for roles where the information is directly related to duties or required by federal law.
Senator Tanya outlined S.90 to the Senate Economic Development, Housing and General Affairs committee as a three-part proposal to restrict employer use of credit checks, criminal-history checks and drug testing before a conditional job offer is on the table.
Tanya said the bill would bar employers from seeking credit history, criminal-background information or requiring drug tests during initial application or early interview stages and would instead allow those checks only after an employer extends a conditional offer of employment and can demonstrate that the information has a direct relationship to the specific job duties. "What we do in our home time is not really our employer's business unless it's our employer's business," Tanya said while explaining the privacy rationale.
Sophie, staff to the committee, explained exceptions that remain in the draft: financial institutions and positions handling payroll may still rely on credit information when the employer demonstrates a direct relationship to duties; federal regulatory requirements (for example, commercial driver licensing rules tied to drug testing) would continue to apply and supersede state limits.
The bill also clarifies the definition and scope of criminal-history inquiries, focusing on convictions or recent adjudications rather than arrests or unadjudicated contacts, and raises the civil penalty for violations in that section from $100 to $1,000. Committee members asked how disputes over whether a check was ‘‘directly related’’ would be decided; Sophie said the employer would make the initial determination and an aggrieved applicant could pursue a civil remedy.
Supporters on the panel said the measure addresses workforce shortages exacerbated by broad pre-employment screening, while some members cautioned about enforcing consistent practices and the risk of litigation if employers treat candidates inconsistently.
No formal committee vote was taken at the hearing; advocates and staff will return to answer technical questions if the committee advances the bill.
