Should Your Credit Report Cost You a Job?

A new bill would prohibit employers from using credit reports in hiring decisions

By Liz Wolgemuth

Posted: July 29, 2009

This sounds like a cycle of pure misery: First, you get laid off. Then, you're one of the 4.4 million Americans who in June saw their job searches stretch out six months or more. The bills keep rolling in—car payment, house payment, medical bills—and your credit card balance is ballooning. You interview for a job and you're one of the top candidates, but a late-stage credit check has the employer going with another hire. The bottom line: You need a job to improve your financial situation, but your finances are now hurting your ability to get a job.

[Search for your best city to find a job.]

A House bill introduced earlier this month aims to prevent such a situation. The Equal Employment for All Act would prohibit employers from using the details of a consumer credit report in making hiring decisions, with exceptions for financial firms and government agencies, as well as jobs requiring certain security clearances. The legislation follows efforts by some states to sharply limit employers' ability to consider a person's creditworthiness in hiring.

While credit checks historically were used to screen applicants for financial and government jobs, the practice has spread. More than 40 percent of employers run credit checks on job candidates, according to some research. Rep. Steve Cohen, who introduced the bill, points to a report that a third of workers making less than $45,000 a year have poor credit scores linked to bankruptcies, loan delinquencies, divorce, medical problems, or unemployment. The bill would give "some of our most vulnerable, 'credit challenged' citizens—students, recent college graduates, low-income families, senior citizens, and minorities—the opportunity to begin rebuilding their credit history by obtaining a job," Cohen says.

[See 10 cities with the most job postings per capita.]

Most employers who run credit checks do not receive details like account numbers—and they do not see the individual's credit score. They also tend to look for specific red flags—for example, trouble paying maxed-out department store credit cards, as opposed to late payments on medical bills, says Matthew Levine, vice president of Checkpast, a Dallas-based pre-employment screening firm.

There are existing safeguards on the credit screening process. The Fair Credit Reporting Act—which the new bill would modify—requires employers to notify candidates that a credit check may be involved in the hiring process, and candidates must authorize the credit checks. It also requires employers who, based on the report, would refuse a new hire (or, say, deny a promotion) to give workers a copy of the credit report and notify them of the company's plans. Individuals then may dispute the accuracy of the information in the report, as many credit reports contain errors.

Critics of the new legislation argue that, because of its limited exemptions, it would prohibit employers in nonfinancial firms from checking out the credit history of employees who would be performing a financial function—a manager of a retail store, for example, or a call center employee who handles credit card numbers. Smaller businesses tend to be especially vulnerable to employee fraud—as many as a third of business bankruptcies are because of employee theft, according to one study.

The idea that some companies would run a credit check because they see a candidate's ability to organize personal finances as an indicator of aptitude in handling the company's seems to cause the most agitation among the bill's supporters. "We just think that how you handle credit is not something from which you can necessarily deduce how you'll be on the job, and it's an unfair reason to tell a person they can't have a job," says Linda Sherry, director of national priorities at Consumer Action, a nonprofit advocacy group. In a recession, as many lose "the income to protect themselves," paying bills can become a challenge even for responsible consumers, Sherry says.

[See more on exhausting unemployment benefits.]

Some in the employment screening industry actually agree with Sherry on this point. The argument that "if you can't handle your own finances, how can you handle ours?" is countered by the fact that "people's personal lives can easily take a wrong turn for reasons not of their making—it doesn't mean they can't handle employers' books," says Les Rosen, president of Employment Screening Resources, a provider of background and screening checks. And Rosen says he believes hiring managers themselves are increasingly sensitive to the limited value of credit checks and generally target checks to candidates for positions that involve access to cash.

Terrible Catch-22

I'm with Jared on this one. I think especially in the current economy you cannot base someone's ability to do incredibly well at work on their credit history.

Bad things happen to good people. Your financial history is your own business. If the hiring company can't accurately judge someone by an interview, perhaps they should hire a new HR manager, because they're not doing their jobs and rather just asking stupid questions for the benefit of no one. I understand it can be expensive to hire someone, but companies (I can understand those in the financial sector, somewhat) are stepping way out of their bounds here. I'm all for new legislation to limit credit checks on hires to only finance-types and government jobs. Anything else is completely ridiculous.

Bri of IA @ Jan 26, 2010 21:14:07 PM

Is It a law?

Where does it state that we must have our credit information published, good or bad.

I believe that there is a way around everything. We all have come to know and expect that it is what it is. If we do some research. I bet that there is a way we can opt out of having our info published. We simply do not wish to participate, Why is it ok for the 3 bureaus to have different scores and wrong info that leads to someone not getting a job. I mean why the hell dont they check with each other to get the score straight.

When the banks could not pay the investors, did the government check their credit?

before handing over the bail out. Nationwide insurance began checking peoples credit. and raising the rates based on score. ( they got sued ) class action.

Do not give in push it to the limit.

RickyV of FL @ Jan 26, 2010 00:27:25 AM

Un-American Procedures

I recently lost my home, because I trusted a loan officer, that I believed trustworthy. I was introduced to the loan broker through an agent that had showed me a home I was interested in. The transaction went through smoothly, and with a good loan. Three years later, I had seen a home near a beach and asked the same loan broker what he thought; this was in 2005. He said I've got a great vehicle for you, I've used it myself, you have great credit-let me run some numbers and I'll get back to you. Now, at this point in my life, I had lot's of equity in my home, owned an income townhouse, my own business and had a comfortable retirement savings. When the broker got back to me, the numbers he quoted sounded good, and I was excited. Some weeks later, the documents were finally ready for signing a few days before I was to take an extended trip. He called and told me to come by his office to sign them. When I arrived at the office, his assistant met me and told me he was in a meeting, and she would preside. She handed me the documents that had little "sign here" stickers and I signed and left. I was not given a copy of the documents either prior to signing for review, nor at the time of signing, the assistant did not review the loan, and the loan broker was not present. Three months later, I was in shock when I saw my mortgage bill! It had gone from the attractive amount the broker had told me, to more than double! When I called him, he was very cavalier and said, that's the kind of loan you got, and I said what do you mean? I had never heard of a negative arm, and he had never explained it to me! He even asked if I felt it had been his responsibility to instruct me, and I said yes! He did not agree-Well,I lost my home in a short-sale because now I had this huge loan to buy the other house, I had to sell that house at a loss, the property values had fallen, and I was upside-down. For almost 3 years I made the huge payments trying to keep my home, or sell it at least to pay off the loan. I depleted my retirement savings, my house was on the market in a downward economy, the economy affected my business to the point I had to close it, and here I am-I've applied to over 30 jobs, I have a degree, I'm smart and I'm honest- and I can't get a job. My credit scores used to be in the high 800's now they are in the mid to high 600's. I tried to find attorney's, filed complaints with the state, bbb, etc. The loan officer created a domino effect of loss for me, by not disclosing, he earned high fee's from the lender, and is not held accountable-I want to rebuild my life, and a job is the first step.

Florence of CA @ Jan 05, 2010 14:10:03 PM

Add Your Thoughts
About You

advertisement

U.S. News Rankings & Research

Best Places

Search for the perfect place for you and your family.

Best Careers

Careers that offer strong outlooks and high job satisfaction.

Car Rankings & Reviews

Make an informed choice when shopping for your next car.

advertisement

Slide Shows

Sponsored Poll

What factor do you think is responsible for the majority of teen-driving crashes?

View Results

advertisement

Subscribe

U.S. News Digital Weekly

A weekly insider's guide to politics and policy — in a multimedia, digital format. 52 issues for $19.95!

U.S. News & World Report

6 months of U.S. News & World Report's print edition for only $15. Save up to 67% off the cover price!