The article examined how background check policies impact delivery drivers who interact with customers, operate fleet vehicles, and are responsible for time-sensitive delivery logistics. Because these drivers are often the public-facing extension of organizational workforce policy, the fairness of employment screening practices becomes not only a legal compliance question, but one of public institutional accountability.

What the Article Raised

Key employment screening concerns covered by Boston Globe include:

• Whether driver background checks apply consistent fairness standards
• How criminal history screening intersects with state anti-discrimination laws
• Retaliation risk when applicants challenge screening process fairness
• Lack of transparency in driver qualification governance architecture
• Differences between contractor and employee screening thresholds
• How screening outcomes affect workforce access and economic mobility

Why Background Checks for Drivers are Complex

Unlike traditional office hiring frameworks, driver screening policies operate within broader overlapping legal and regulatory ecosystems:

1. State anti-discrimination screening limits — many states restrict blanket criminal history exclusion unless directly related to job duties.
2. Federal wage & classification implications — drivers labeled as contractors may still be analyzed under employee rights tests, depending on control and dependency structures.
3. Transportation risk governance — drivers operate vehicles, requiring safety-risk justification frameworks that are defensible and documented.
4. Public fairness perception — because delivery drivers represent brands directly to the public, fairness failures become public institutional reputation liabilities.

The ADEA does not directly impact drivers based on age, but screening bias may still implicate protected-class frameworks like race, disability, national origin, or criminal history safeguards under municipal employment law.

Insights from Philip Gordon

Philip Gordon provided commentary focusing on how employers must balance:

• The necessity of safety justification for drivers transporting goods
• Procedural fairness and lawful screening burden shifting
• Potential gaps in screening governance documentation chains
• Ensuring background-check policies don’t produce discriminatory outcomes
• How to structure defensible hiring screening governance evidence
• Liability stacking risk when screening policy reasoning fails

Because Amazon drivers deliver both private and commercial goods, regulators and courts increasingly evaluate background check opacity risks, subcontracting liability diffusion, driver civil-rights protection intersections, and policy justification durability.

(View Article)

We’ve also posted this on Facebook (here), if you’d like to interact with us there.

For many years, companies relied on credit scores, credit reports, late payments, charged-off debt, bankruptcies, and account details to filter job candidates or evaluate internal staff. Studies and class-wide discrimination claims have repeatedly demonstrated that this practice disproportionately impacts minority groups, lower-income households, women, caregivers, immigrants, students, and traditionally under-represented applicants. Critics argue that credit reports measure financial history not job performance or workplace risk.

The provision was added as an amendment to the city’s Human Rights Law and goes into effect on September 3, 2015.

What Counts as NYC Credit History Under the Ban

Under the law, the term credit history includes:

• Credit scores and credit reports
• Late or missed payments
• Collection accounts
• Bankruptcy filings
• Civil judgments
• Charged-off or settled debt
• Details about active credit accounts

If your employer asks for this information for a non-exempt role, you have legal grounds to decline.

Employer Exceptions Still Allowed

The law does provide limited exceptions, where credit history may still be screened. The role must fall into one of these categories:

✔ Positions where federal or state law requires credit review
✔ Law enforcement roles or criminal justice positions
✔ Jobs requiring public trust-based background checks
✔ State or federal security clearance roles
✔ Positions with authority over $10,000+ in assets or spending control
✔ Non-clerical roles with access to trade secrets or national intelligence

For all other roles, credit history is legally off-limits for workplace decision-making.

This legislation is largely considered pro-employee and workers should keep it in mind when employers ask for their credit histories. If employees believe that they have been illegally discriminated against based on a credit history issue, they can file a complaint with the New York Commission on Human Rights or file suit against the employer, which can lead to the payment of compensatory damages.

One of our attorneys, Philip Gordon has testified before the House and Senate’s Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development in favor of similar laws here in Massachusetts.

If you have any questions about this legislation or if you have faced credit or background checks in your employment, contact us today.

The current legislation exempts certain classes of workers from receiving overtime pay, even if they work more than 40 hours within a single workweek. The exemption currently applies to workers who are paid a salary of at least $455 per week. In addition, the employee must perform certain types of work, also known as the “duties” test.  While the exact exemption that applies to individual jobs vary, the types of factors to look for include:

• Management of the business;
• Control over individuals;
• Substantial decision making authority;
• Work that requires specialized academic instruction or training;
• Work that is done in the field of computer technology;
• Work that includes sales made away from the employer’s place of business; and/or
• Work in a recognized artistic or creative field.

Though the proposed changes are yet to be reviewed, proponents argue that is the responsibility of Congress to determine if changes are appropriate and make them, and not the executive branch. If the OMB approves the submission, the DOL will release the proposed changes for public review and comment.

If you have any questions about overtime exemptions, contact us today for a free case evaluation.