On April 25, 2012, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) updated its Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions under Title VII. There has long been a debate about the consideration of criminal history in the hiring process. http://nelp.3cdn.net/e9231d3aee1d058c9e_55im6wopc.pdf However, this is the first guidance that the EEOC has provided on this topic in 20 years. The guidance does however reflect the EEOC’s long-held position that employers’ reliance on arrest and conviction records may have a disparate impact on individuals because of their race or national origin. 

Generally, the California’s “Shine the Light” law requires disclosure by any “business” that has disclosed “personal information” to “third parties” and knows or reasonably should know that the third party used the information for “direct marketing purposes.”  Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.83. The “Shine the Light” law became effective on January 1, 2005, and received little notice from plaintiff’s lawyers.  This appears to be changing.

Businesses commonly insert arbitration clauses in its contracts and consumer user agreements with the intent to avoid costly litigation.  When drafting an arbitration clause, businesses must not only weigh the benefits and drawbacks of including such a clause, but must also consider its enforceability and the scope of what the parties will be required to arbitrate.  Under the Ohio Arbitration Act, arbitration clauses are “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, except upon grounds that exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.”  Ohio Rev. Code § 2711.01(A).  Two recent decisions from Ohio appellate courts highlight the presumption that arbitration clauses are enforceable and that parties opposing the arbitration must satisfy a high burden in order to overcome that presumption.