So if you are reading this, and you aren’t a constitutional law buff, you are probably asking yourself, “What is sovereign immunity?” Sovereign immunity is an old English common law concept that prohibited anyone from suing the Crown since the King was ordained by God. In the United States, state legislatures have passed statutes that provide broad protection for “state actors” who commit an act within the ordinary and normal course of doing their jobs. Such employees, and the entities that employ them, cannot be sued for damages because of their protected status. The rationale for these statutes is that government bodies need such protection to properly govern. Acts of government bodies (and the individuals who make up government bodies) will always offend someone.

Now, if you ask me, sovereign immunity makes sense in theory, but it should allow be applied in very narrow circumstances. As it stands now, a state employee, or institution, can do whatever they or it wants to a citizen (i.e. Coach Leach) and then when it comes time to face the music in a civil suit (i.e pay $800,000.00 for your wrongful conduct), the state employee or institution can hide behind sovereign immunity and be exempt from money damages. Does anyone else have a problem with providing the government with this irrevocable get out of jail free card? If anything the state and/or federal government should be held to a higher standard and face more severe penalties than the citizens. Instead, it is the opposite.

In my opinion, before any person or institution can be permitted to use this defense they should be required to read Swing your Sword, or any other leadership book from that matter. I’m sure they would soon discover that a common principle of leadership is to expect more from yourself as leader than from the people you lead. Hopefully then after a brief period of self reflection they would think twice about their wrongful actions and own up to them. If they don’t they should never be allowed to lead any group again.

Now, I do have to thank the defendants in Coach Leach’s case for treating him the way they did. If they didn’t he would probably still be at Texas Tech recruiting great players and having winning seasons. Fortunately for WSU, and the state of Washington, that isn’t the case.

Finally, Coach Leach, if you ever stumble upon this post please know that I am very sympathetic to you and your family for the problems this case has caused all of you. I’m quite sure that the great state of Washington and the fantastic employees of WSU will never treat you this way. And if they do, feel free to give me a call.

P.S. – Below is a picture of Coach Leach and I at Night with Cougar Football. He was gracious enough to sign my copy of Swing your Sword. The exact words that he wrote in my book are “From one Lawyer to another Lawyer. –Mike Leach”. What a guy.

As any successful business will agree the first important decision a business faces is how to properly form the business entity.   This important process consists of four components.

Entity Selection – The first step is to decide what entity form to select for your business. There are several options available, such as a sole proprietorship, limited liability company (LLC), corporation (with either an S or C corp. election) and many forms of partnership. Typically, if there is more than one person but less than five as part of the business, a limited liability company is the preferred entity structure due to the liability protections and relaxed corporate formalities. However, before selecting the entity type, the business should consider a number of factors, including tax consequences, which should be obtained from the business’ tax professional.

Formation – After determining the entity form, important legal documents must be drafted and filed with a number of state, federal and city agencies. The agencies include, but are not limited to, the Washington Secretary of State, Department of Revenue, and the Internal Revenue Service. In addition to these filing requirements, the entity should also adopt an agreement amongst the owners governing the operation of the business. These documents are often referred to as an operating agreement and/or shareholder agreement depending, on the entity form.

Employment Needs – The next component of business formation is determining the business’ employment needs. Assuming the business will be hiring employees and/or independent contractors, the business should provide employment contracts and/or adopt important employment policies to protect it from potential liability. If no employees will be hired, it is still necessary to consult our attorneys regarding this aspect as one or several of the owners could be bound by other employment agreements (non-compete and/or non-solicitation agreements) with third parties, which could interfere with the business’ operations.

Customer Contracts – The final component of our representation is to create a contract the business can use to conduct business with its customers.

Forming a business entity is a critical first step in any business, so make sure you receive the proper guidance.

So what does this mean to you if you are an employee or an employer?  Before I turn to my view of the case and its affects, please note that this opinion is by no means a complete analysis of the Decision.  I’m simply discussing some of the highlights that I found interesting after reading the opinion and listening to commentary from legal scholars.

Facts

The facts of the case are pretty straight forward.  The case started in 2000, when a 54-year-old Wal-Mart worker in California named Betty Dukes filed a sex discrimination claim against her employer. Dukes claimed that, despite six years of hard work and excellent performance reviews, she was denied the training she needed to advance to a higher salaried position. Wal-Mart’s position is that Dukes clashed with a female Wal-Mart supervisor and was disciplined for admittedly returning late from lunch breaks.

Dukes filed a class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in San Francisco on behalf of herself and 1.6 million female plaintiffs, including all those who work or have previously worked in a Wal-Mart store since December 26, 1998.  Dukes’ position was that Wal-Mart’s corporate policy was to refuse management training to women, but provide it to men.  What is critical in the Plaintiff’s claim is that Wal-Mart did not have an explicit policy refusing management training to women. Instead, Dukes claimed that such a policy existed because evidence the management at Wal-Mart was predominately male.  The Supreme Court ultimately ruled against Dukes and held that the case could not continue as a class action.

Employee

So if you are an employee what does this mean?  Unfortunately because of this decision it will be very difficult, if not impossible, for groups of employees to bring a class action lawsuit for race/sex discrimination against an employer unless there is an explicit corporate policy encouraging discrimination, which usually doesn’t exist – most companies aren’t that stupid.  Anything less and the case cannot continue as a class action.

Next, and even more frightening for employees and other plaintiffs, is that the decision could extend to other class actions.  Since the Supreme Court issued the decision, other courts have extended the ruling to class actions involving nonpayment of wages (overtime and minimum wage) and toxic tort claims in an effort to prevent class actions from proceeding.  My understanding is that these courts are claiming that the Dukes decision supports the claim that a class action cannot proceed if the court must conduct an analysis on each individual in the class to determine that person’s specific damage.

Employer

Conversely, if you are an employer, especially a large one, the decision is a victory for you.  The Dukes decision virtually eliminates the possibility that employees can come together and bring a class action lawsuit against your company based on discrimination.  The decision also reminds employers to carefully develop objective factors to determine when an employee is entitled to a promotion.  These factors coupled with an extensive anti-discrimination policy should be an effective tool to protect the employer from discrimination suits.

The Future of the Case

Legal scholars, particularly on the plaintiff’s side, are already discussing how the case can be overturnned.  One theory is that legislation can be passed by Congress that amends Title 7 and includes an exception to the Dukes decision.  Sample legislation has already been drafted by a Columbia Law School Professor, but it is unlikely that it will be introduced or passed by Congress since they can’t seem to agree on anything these days.

The next, and more likely way that the case will be overturned, is through a subsequent decision by the Supreme Court.  The decision in Duke’s was decided 5 to 4 (Five justices voting for it, and four voting against it).  Therefore all that is needed is for one of the majority members to retire, for the President to appoint someone who will overturn Dukes, a similar case to be brought before the Supreme Court, and then the Court, consisting of the new member, overturns the case with its new decision.

Who is to say when this will happen, but you can bet that during the next senate confirmation hearing of whoever is appointed, members from both sides will be asking questions to determine how the potential justice views the decision in Dukes.

My View

I disagree with the Court.  As a matter of public policy we need to provide Plaintiff’s with some avenue to have their case heard when it would be too burdensome for the plaintiff to proceed on his or her own.  Think about it, in many class actions, the class is made up of individual plaintiffs whose claim by itself would not justify the legal costs associated with an individual case.  The only way to make such an action feasible is for individuals with similar claims, to pull them together as one group, (i.e. a class) and then bring them at the same time.  If we eliminate this avenue, such as the Duke’s case attempts to do, then thousands of Plaintiff’s due process rights will be affected.  These Plaintiff’s will have no feasible way to bring their case before a court so their rights will continue to be violated and they will have limited or no judicial recourse for such violations.

Conclusion

As discussed above, the Dukes decision is clearly a controversial decision that has affected the rights of employees, employers and anyone else who is either a plaintiff or defendant in a class action.  Only time will tell how long this decision and its affects will last.

In an effort to kill two birds with one stone, when I watched the movie I thought of various employment laws that arose so I could combine those examples into my review about the movie.  The final product resulted in what you’ll read below.  My article essentially consists of the various employment laws that were called into question during the movie and of course my review of the film.  Oh, and don’t worry, I won’t reveal anything that spoils the ending.  

Employment Laws

The employment law issues I picked out of the movie were 1) payment for travel time and 2) the at-will employee relationship. 

Payment for Travel Time

If you’ve seen the movie, you know that the bride to be, Lillian, lives in Milwaukee, but commutes to Chicago for work.  The first issue I spotted here was whether she is entitled to compensation by her employer for time that she travels.  The answer is, probably not.  Compensation for travel time only arises in the context of non-exempt employees.  A non-exempt employee is a person who is (i) not paid on a salary basis, and/or (ii) not employed in an executive, administrative, professional or outside sales capacity.  I don’t know what Lillian did for a living, but if it required her to drive back and forth from Chicago, I assume she probably fell into the professional or outside sales capacity.  Now if she was a non-exempt employee, then the FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act), Portal to Portal Act and/or Department of Labor Regulations would apply and she might be entitled to some form of compensation.  If you want to learn more about these laws/regulations in this context, feel free to review the following article by clicking here. 

At-Will Employment

The next employment law issue that arose addressed the ever popular at-will employee relationship.  In the movie, the maid of honor, Annie, is terminated on the spot after calling a customer a vulgar word (I’ll exclude the word  for professional reasons).  Of course, the issue I  identified from this, putting aside the comment, was the question of “Could Annie just be fired on the spot?”  

Now if Annie was in Washington State, the answer to this question would likely be “yes” so long as she is an at-will employee.  Employees in Washington are generally at-will, meaning they can quit or be fired at anytime.  Gardner v. Loomis Armored Inc., 128 Wash.2d 931.  In contrast to employment at-will, some employees are given greater protection from termination.  This type of employment is commonly referred to as “just cause employment”.  This higher protection typically arises if the employee has an employment contract with the employer or is working under a collective bargaining agreement which states that the employee can only be terminated for “cause”.  Now the term “cause” can vary, but if you are the employee it’s best to have the definition of “cause” be as narrow as possible.  Conversely, if you are the employer, you want the definition of “cause” to be as broad as possible.   

Now that we know all this, let’s turn back to Annie.   Chances are she was an at-will employee because she likely didn’t have an employment contract and I doubt she was employed under a collective bargaining agreement.   Therefore, her termination was permitted.  In addition, even if she was a “just cause employee”, I’m sure calling a customer a vulgar name would fall under any definition of the term “cause”, particularly the word she used.  Sorry to say this Annie, but your employer’s actions were legal. 

My Review

Okay, now that the boring stuff is out of the way, let’s talk about the movie itself.  From a guys’ perspective, I thought it was great.  Despite the fact that it was hard for me to relate to the challenges of a bridesmaid, I had a good time watching Kristen Wiig and the other actresses deal with the pressures and responsibilities of it.  Kristen Wiig is hilarious and also co-wrote the script.  If you like her on Saturday Night Live, you’ll certainly enjoy her performance.  I think the best part was her reaction on the airplane after mixing medication and scotch.  Calling “Steve” “Stove” was pretty classic.  In sum, I thought it was a fantastic movie.  If you are a guy and your wife / girlfriend / partner is asking you to see it, go! You’ll not only score points with him or her, but also have an enjoyable time and have some good laughs.

1. The agreement is unenforceable because there was no consideration. One of the most common reasons that courts refuse to enforce Non-Competes is that employers make the mistake of obtaining the agreement from an already-hired employee without providing the employee with anything of value in return. Generally, such agreements are unenforceable because the employee did not receive any additional “consideration.” Essentially, this means that the employee did not obtain anything of value in exchange for his or her agreement not to compete. For a Non-Compete to be enforceable, there must be consideration, which is a legal term for an exchange of value. For Non-Competes obtained from newly hired employees, usually the agreement only needs to state that the employer’s willingness to hire the employee is the value exchanged for the employee’s agreement not to compete. For existing employees, however, additional consideration is required to make an agreement enforceable. When employers obtain Non-Competes with long-standing employees without providing anything of value in return, they are obtaining an unenforceable agreement. In many cases, the business is in a worse predicament than not having a Non-Compete, since it is relying on an agreement that is not legally enforceable. It is vital to provide additional value to an existing employee in exchange for the Non-Compete. This additional consideration could be more money, new job responsibilities and titles, new benefits, or a change from “at-will” to “contract-employee” status. While the additional consideration does not have to be of tremendous value, it must provide a real benefit that the employee was not otherwise entitled to receive.

2. The agreement is unenforceable because it restricts competition for too long. Another common reason that courts refuse to enforce a Non-Compete is that the agreement restricts the employee from competing for an unreasonably long amount of time. For example, a court will likely refuse to enforce an agreement that prohibits an employee from competing for the rest of his or her life. In contrast, in many industries, a Non-Compete with a duration of 6-months will be considered reasonable, and therefore enforceable. The general rule is that the duration of the agreement should not exceed the time reasonably necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate business interests.

What is considered “reasonable” varies from business to business, and requires a specific consideration of the facts and circumstances surrounding the agreement. This is one area where expert legal advice can be extremely valuable in creating an agreement with the maximum enforceable duration.

3. The agreement is unenforceable because it restricts competition in an unreasonably large territory. Many Non-Competes are unenforceable because they restrict competition across too broad of a territory. Non-Competes usually describe a restricted area in which the employee cannot compete. Oftentimes this restricted area is determined based on a certain mile radius from employer headquarters or facilities, or by a list of towns or counties in which the employee is prohibited from competing. While these restrictions vary from agreement to agreement, the law requires the geographic scope of a restriction to be reasonable. While agreements that restrict employees from competing within a few miles of the employer’s headquarters are often enforceable, agreements that prohibit an employee from competing anywhere in the world are often (though not always) unenforceable. Like determinations of a reasonable duration for a Non-Compete, what is considered a “reasonable” geographic restriction varies from business to business. Again, legal advice that is tailored to your business, industry, and circumstances can be extremely valuable in determining the appropriate restricted territory.

4. Using a one-size-fits-all approach. A Non-Compete that is good for one business or industry could be ill ill-suited for another. Likewise, a Non-Compete that is crafted for use with a particular employee might be counter-productive if used with another. It is a mistake to use a one-size-fits-all approach with Non-Competes. Unfortunately, some neglect this principle and develop Non-Competes from agreements used in other industries, or from something they find on the Internet. Such a one-size-fits-all approach risks creating a Non-Compete that is not well adapted to the specific needs of your business. Such an agreement might have a geographic or durational restriction that is unsuited to your industry, rendering it unenforceable. Additionally, a Non-Compete that is enforceable in one state might be unenforceable under the laws of another state. For these reasons (and numerous others), a proper Non-Compete should include a specific consideration of your business’ needs and circumstances.

5. Not getting a non-compete when you buy a business or the assets of a business. It’s happened, and it’s embarrassing. Sometimes an acquirer purchases a business without securing a Non-Compete from the selling company’s owners or key personnel, only to find it’s competing with the same people shortly after the acquisition. If the sellers of a business possess valuable customer relationships, know-how, or skills, a purchaser should consider insisting on a Non-Compete from the owners and key personnel.

6. Not having a provision that allows you to assign the agreement. Another common mistake that surfaces when a business is sold is the failure to include an assignment provision in the Non-Compete. Basically, some jurisdictions do not permit the seller of a business’ assets to transfer its Non-Competes to the purchaser unless the employee consents to the assignment. This means that the purchaser of a business’ assets may not be able to enforce its Non-Competes without the employee’s consent. In order to avoid such situation, a Non-Compete should include a provision that allows the employer to assign the agreement to a purchaser of the business.

7. Not having a choice of law provision. It is critical that a Non-Compete appropriately addresses the issue of which jurisdiction’s laws will govern the agreement. An agreement that is enforceable in one state may not be enforceable in another. Likewise, a remedy for a violation of a Non-Compete may be a legal remedy in one jurisdiction but forbidden in another. This raises significant issues for companies that are engaged in business in multiple states. This is another reason why a one-size-fits-all approach to Non-Competes could harm your business. It is essential to ensure that your Non-Competes address the complex issues that arise from the various (often conflicting) state laws governing such agreements. This is another area where legal advice can be invaluable if it is tailored to your business’ needs.

8. Not updating it. The circumstances of your business and the laws governing Non-Competes change from time-to-time. If these critical agreements are not updated or reviewed periodically, they risk becoming irrelevant to a business’ changing needs. Many things change for a business, including its essential employees, its key customers, and the information or techniques that it wants to keep confidential – this means that its Non-Competes need to change from time-to-time too.

9. Thinking that, just because you have one, your problems are solved. While Non-Competes can be immensely valuable, they are not a cure-all. It is a mistake to think that such an agreement is the only thing that is required to retain valuable employees or protect your business’ confidential information. Employees can always choose to defy a Non-Compete and risk the legal consequences. A business’ confidential information can still be secreted away by an employee in violation of a Non-Compete. Non-Competes can make such actions more difficult, and the consequences more severe, but they rarely make such occurrences impossible. The reality is that retaining valuable employees and customers and protecting a business’ confidential information is a multi-faceted effort. As such, it is important not to think of a Non-Compete as a silver bullet or cure-all, but rather as one more tool in the toolbox. Such a tool, when used properly, can be of tremendous value to a business.

10. Not having one. Many businesses that could benefit from obtaining Non-Competes from their employees fail to do so. There are a variety of reasons this occurs. Sometimes the business’ owners or managers think they’re too busy to obtain such an agreement. Other times, employers overestimate the loyalty of their employees. There are also instances where employers fail to appreciate the value of protecting their business’ confidential information and customers from potential competitors. Perhaps one of the biggest reasons for this neglect is that Non-Competes raise the prospect of losing valuable employees, which is something that many would prefer not to think about. Whatever the reason, it is vital to consider whether a Non-Compete could help to protect your business’ customers and confidential information from unfair competition.

As you can tell the article helps you understand why non-competes are important and some of the reasons why they are not enforceable.

Since I practice law in Washington I naturally looked at our state’s case law, but couldn’t find a case on point to answer my question. I expanded my search to other states and found two relevant cases, one in Illinois and the other in Missouri. In 2001, an Illinois’ court found that an employer has no protectible interest in an employee’s customers unless the employer can show the employee would not have had contact with the customers absent his association with the employer. Com-Co Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Service Ins. Agency Inc., 748 N.E.2d 298, *302 (2001). I interpret this to mean that in state of Illinois, that when an employee leaves their employer he or she can bring their clients with him as long as that person brought them to the company at the time they were hired. In addition to this Illinois case, I also found a Missouri case that held the exact opposite. Naegele v. Biomedical Systems Corp., 272 S.W.3d 385, *389 (2008).

So now the question remains, would the Washington court follow Illinois or Missouri? My opinion is that a Washington court would follow Illinois, and here’s why. The backbone of decisions regarding non-competes are that the agreement must be reasonable. In fact, a court in WA will not enforce a non-compete or a provision of the non-compete if it results in an unreasonable outcome. This would be the case if the state followed the Missouri case law. Think about it, in Missouri an employer can hire a salesperson, have them bring their clients to the company, terminate the employee right after the hire date, and prevent the employee from contacting the same clients that he or she brought to the Company. Sounds unreasonable to me, and I think the Washington courts would agree. Therefore, I believe that the Illinois holding discussed above would be adopted by a Washington court.

In the end of it all I guess my niece, i.e. the company, doesn’t get to keep something if it doesn’t belong to them in the first place. Sorry Bailey, but I’ll buy you some M & M’s to make up for it.

In the state of Washington all employees are subject to the minimum wage unless excluded by statute. RCW 49.46.010 excludes certain volunteers as “employees”. The applicable statutes related to interns are RCW 49.46.010(5)(d) and (e). Those sections read as follows:

RCW 49.46.010(d)

Any individual engaged in the activities of an educational, charitable, religious, state or local governmental body or agency, or nonprofit organization where the employer-employee relationship does not in fact exist or where the services are rendered to such organizations gratuitously.

RCW 49.46.010(e)

Any individual employed full time by any state or local governmental body or agency who provides voluntary services but only with regard to the provision of the voluntary services.

The Department of Labor and Industries has also enacted an official policy statement interpreting the above. Most applicable is the section that reads:

DOL Policy

Volunteers are not allowed in a “for-profit” business. Any individual, partnership, association, corporation, business trust, or any person or group of persons acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer, who permits any individual to work, is subject to the provisions of the MWA.

In sum, even if the intern is willing to work free the “for profit” business must pay the intern. But come on, interns are usually smart, enthusiastic, and willing to do whatever is needed to get experience. In my mind an employee like that is worth at least $8.55 per hour.

Narrow Your Search – The first step in locating an attorney is to narrow your search to attorneys who specifically practice personal injury law. I know this is a basic step, but it cannot be under estimated because not all lawyers practice personal injury law. In fact, most have no experience in this area whatsoever. I’ll admit that before becoming a personal injury attorney, I, like many others, thought that personal injury was as a basic area that any attorney could practice. However, after practicing in this area for the last two years I can tell you that it is a highly complex area and the attorney must donate at least a substantial portion of his or her practice be effective.

Narrow it Again – Once you’ve narrowed your search to personal injury lawyers, narrow it again and find a personal injury attorney that has experience representing clients who have been injured in the same way as you. For example, if you’ve been involved in a low impact car accident, find a personal injury attorney that focuses his or her personal injury practice on low impact car accidents. Conversely, if you’ve been injured in the course of treatment by a doctor or other health care professional, narrow your search to personal injury attorneys who specialize in medical malpractice. Again, personal injury law is very broad and has many unique practice areas. Therefore, you need to find a personal injury who has experience representing plaintiffs that have experienced an injury similar to yours.

Find out the fee – Personal injury attorneys generally charge a contingency fee. This means that there are no upfront attorney fees, but the attorney will receive a percentage of any settlement he or she recovers for you. In a contingency fee situation, if you recover nothing, your attorney receives no fees from you. The most common amount is thirty-three percent of the total recovered but that could increase if your case requires a trial. If the attorney refuses to take your case on a contingency, I suggest going elsewhere.

Communication not Location – Communication with the attorney is much more important than his or her location. Years ago it was important to have a lawyer that was a few minutes from your work or home. However, thanks to cell phones and email, this is no longer the case. During the course of the representation, you will likely meet with your attorney between two to five times. In contrast, you’ll speak, or should speak, to him or her more than thirty times. Therefore, it should be much easier to contact your attorney than to physically see him or her. In addition, to facilitate communication with your attorney, make sure you have the attorney’s direct line and email address. Also, arrange a time and day to speak every two weeks on the phone so that you can provide one another with updates on the case.

Like the Lawyer and the Person – After narrowing down your choices using the above criteria, it will ultimately come time to meet with the attorney or attorney(s) during an initial consult. First, if you have personal injury case, the initial consult should be free. If an attorney attempts to charge you for an hour of his or her time, take your business elsewhere. Assuming the consult is free this will be your opportunity to learn about the attorney. During the consult I suggest asking the lawyer to explain his or her experience and why he or she believes they are the most qualified attorney to represent you. In addition to these professional questions, make sure to get an idea of who the attorney is as a person. Remember, you will be spending significant time dealing with this individual. Therefore you should have a good idea of who they are before you agree to form this professional relationship.

In addition to learning about the merit’s of your case, the initial consult will serve two other purposes for the client. First, you will learn more about the attorney professionally and personally. Second you will see a glimpse of the attorney’s advocacy skills as he or she attempts to persuade you to retain him or her as your lawyer. If after this conversation, you believe the attorney is the right person from the job, then your search is over. If you don’t feel confident with the attorney, don’t be afraid to keep looking for another “needle”.

1. Be passionate about the nonprofit’s cause.

2. Receive a firm time commitment from the Board and hold them to it.

3. Make sure the organization ties into your family, personal life and/or business.

Don’t get me wrong, these rules are not meant to discourage volunteer service; however, I’m a firm believer that you should not volunteer for any organization unless you can actively participate and make a difference. Plus, by following these three simple principles, you and the organization will benefit from your participation.

Washing law only permits a potential employer to pull a credit report if it is 1) required by law or 2) substantially related to the job. RCW 19.182.020. If your credit is substantially related to the job, the employer or person pulling the report, must also state in writing the reasons for use of the report. If the employer fails to follow these laws it leaves itself vulnerable to claims under the consumer protection act.

The next logical question that follows is, “What jobs are substantially related to a credit score?” This depends. As with most of the law, there is no clear answer, but I would argue that a substantial part of the position must involve maintaining company finances. For example, obviously a credit score is not substantially related to an applicant’s ability to perform the duties of a machinist. However, a credit score would likely be substantially related to the applicant’s ability to perform the duties of an accountant, i.e. paying bills, balancing a check register, etc. Therefore, obtaining a credit report in the latter situation would be warranted. Because the majority of jobs do not involve the management of company finances, I would estimate that most Washington companies obtaining credit reports as part of the hiring process are violating state law.

Prior to the economic crisis, I don’t think this topic would have generated much attention, and not even a blog post. However, times change and I anticipate that more states will follow Washington’s lead and adopt legislation regulating the use of credit reports during the hiring process.