Check out some of our favorite blog posts from this month and remember to stay tuned for more of our favorites in May!
FCRA Disclosure Form Cannot Contain State Disclosures
On January 29, 2019, in  Gilberg v. California Check Cashing Stores, LLC , the Ninth Circuit held that a prospective employer violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA )—an act passed in 1970 that regulates the collection of credit information and the access to credit reports to ensure fairness, accuracy and privacy of the personal information contained in files of credit reporting agencies—by including information on a disclosure form unrelated to rights protected by the FCRA. 
Job Applicants Are Not Protected Under The ADEA On The Theory of Disparate Impact
In  Kleber v. CareFusion Corporation , CareFusion Corporation (“ CareFusion ”) denied job applicant, Dale Kleber, 58-years-old, the position of senior in-house counsel. Mr. Kleber sued CareFusion for age discrimination, claiming that CareFusion’s policy of not hiring applicants with more than seven years of experience violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ ADEA ”). The district court dismissed the claim, concluding that the ADEA did not allow job applicants to bring a disparate impact claim against a prospective employer. A divided panel of the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s decision, and CareFusion appealed to the Seventh Circuit en banc, which upheld the district court’s decision.
Intersection Between Gender and Disability Discrimination
In  Kassa v. Synovus Bank , a federal district court in Georgia granted summary judgment in favor of Synovus Bank (the “Bank”), concluding that a mentally ill employee’s sexist comment was not related to his disability and, therefore, the Bank’s decision to terminate him for the comment was not discriminatory. The court found that Eleventh Circuit law did not support the employee’s argument that the comment directly related to his conditions, including intermittent explosive and impulse control disorders, and should not have resulted in termination. This case is important because it is one of the few cases dealing with the intersection between different protected classes, specifically, disability and sex. This case also deals with an open issue in many circuits: whether misconduct resulting from a disability is considered to be part of the disability, rather than a separate basis for termination.
The Harman Firm, LLP | T: 212 425 2600 | F: 212 202 3926 | www.theharmanfirm.com