Effective April, 18 2026: Employers across New York will face a major shift in how credit history can be used in employment decisions. The state has expanded restrictions that previously applied primarily in New York City to now cover employers statewide. This change reflects a broader national trend aimed at reducing barriers to employment and limiting the use of personal financial information in hiring decisions.

For many years, some employers relied on credit reports as part of pre-employment screening, particularly for positions involving finances or sensitive responsibilities. However, lawmakers and regulators have increasingly questioned whether credit history is a fair or reliable indicator of job performance or trustworthiness. Financial hardship can result from medical debt, identity theft, or economic conditions beyond an individual’s control. By limiting when credit history may be used, New York is reinforcing a more equitable and privacy-conscious approach to hiring.

This law signals a growing shift in how personal data is viewed in the employment context. As more jurisdictions move to restrict certain types of background information, employers must adapt their hiring practices to align with changing legal and ethical standards.

Narrow Exceptions

While the new law broadly restricts the use of consumer credit history in employment decisions, it does not impose a total ban. There are limited, narrowly defined exceptions where credit history may still be relevant and legally permissible. These exceptions are generally tied to roles that involve a heightened level of trust, regulatory oversight, financial authority, or access to sensitive systems or information.

In these circumstances, credit history may be requested or considered when it is directly connected to the responsibilities of the role or required by law or regulation. The intent behind these exceptions is to allow employers to assess financial risk only where it is truly job-related and necessary, rather than as a routine screening practice.

Outside of these limited scenarios, employers should expect that credit history will no longer be an appropriate or lawful part of the employment decision-making process in New York. Applying exceptions too broadly or without a clear connection to job duties may create compliance risk and potential legal exposure.

How This Affects Background Screening

The law also has important implications for background screening providers and the structure of screening packages. If an employer is not legally permitted to consider credit history for a particular role, that information should not be included in the background screening report provided to them. This means screening programs that once included credit checks by default may now need to be reconfigured on a role-by-role or jurisdiction-specific basis.

For employers, this introduces a new layer of responsibility when designing screening workflows. Screening packages should be aligned with job requirements and local regulations to ensure that prohibited information is not collected or shared. For background screening companies, this requires stronger controls to prevent the delivery of non-compliant data and clearer communication with clients about when credit checks are appropriate.

As employment laws continue to evolve, background screening programs are becoming more customized and compliance-driven. Employers that rely on standardized, one-size-fits-all screening packages may face increased risk as state and local laws diverge. Proactive alignment between employers and their screening partners will be essential to maintaining compliance.

Employer Guidance

Employers should view this change as an opportunity to modernize and refine their screening practices ahead of 2026. Reviewing current background screening policies, job classifications, and screening packages now can help prevent compliance issues later. Internal training is equally important, as hiring managers and HR teams need to understand what information can and cannot be considered when making employment decisions.

For multi-state employers, this law reinforces the need to account for varying requirements across jurisdictions. States such as California, Illinois, and Washington have already enacted similar restrictions, and more jurisdictions are expected to follow. Aligning screening programs with the most restrictive applicable laws can help create consistency while reducing compliance risk.

For more information, click here.

GIS is committed to helping organizations navigate ever-changing hiring laws and stay compliant through every update.  If you have questions about your current background screening process or want to understand the screening laws in your state, we’re here to help.

California lawmakers are reshaping how artificial intelligence (AI) and automated systems can be used in the workplace. The new proposed bill “No Robo Bosses Act” (SB 7) is moving through the state legislature and would place new limits on how employers rely on automated decision-making tools when making employment-related decisions. While the legislation is still under review and subject to change, it reflects a broader push to ensure that technology used in the workplace remains transparent, fair, and subject to human judgment.

As more employers adopt AI-driven tools to streamline hiring, performance management, scheduling, and other workforce processes, regulators are increasingly focused on how these technologies may impact workers’ rights and equal employment opportunity.

What This Means

This law would restrict employers from relying primarily on automated decision systems to make significant employment decisions such as hiring, promotions, discipline, or termination. Instead, the bill would require that a human decision-maker meaningfully review the information used by automated tools and make an independent assessment before a final decision is made.

The proposal would also limit the use of systems designed to predict or infer personal characteristics, behavior, or performance. Lawmakers have raised concerns that these types of tools may rely on assumptions or data patterns that are difficult to explain and may unintentionally produce biased outcomes.

Notice and Transparency Requirements

If enacted, the law would require employers to provide clear written notice when automated systems are used in employment-related decisions. Employers would also be expected to maintain records of the automated tools in use within their organization.

In addition, when an automated system plays a role in a specific employment decision, affected individuals would be entitled to information about that use, including how to contact a human reviewer and how to seek more details about the process. The goal is to ensure that employees and applicants are not left in the dark when technology influences outcomes that affect their jobs or career opportunities.

The proposal would  also provide individuals with the ability to challenge employment decisions that were influenced by automated tools. Employers would be required to designate a human reviewer with the ability to reconsider the decision and evaluate any supporting information. This review process is intended to add a layer of accountability and prevent automated systems from having the final say over important employment outcomes.

Open Questions and Practical Challenges

Although the bill outlines broad restrictions and requirements, there are still open questions about how it would be applied in practice. The definition of what qualifies as an “automated decision system” could capture a wide range of technologies currently used by employers, from advanced AI tools to software that helps rank or sort information. Employers may face uncertainty in determining which tools fall under the law and how much transparency is required when explaining how these systems work.

There are also practical concerns around explaining technical systems in a way that is meaningful to employees while still protecting proprietary information from vendors and technology partners.

Employer Guidance

Because SB 7 is still working its way through the legislative process, amendments and revisions are possible. Employers should keep an eye on how the bill develops and begin assessing where automated tools are used within their organization. Understanding current practices, evaluating risk, and preparing for potential transparency and oversight requirements can help organizations adapt more smoothly if the bill becomes law.

As employers evaluate how automation fits into their hiring processes, this proposal is also a reminder that technology should support, not replace, well-defined hiring policies. Rather than relying solely on AI or automated tools to make employment decisions, companies should maintain comprehensive hiring and adjudication processes that include clear criteria for evaluating results, consistent documentation, and meaningful human review. Thoughtful adjudication helps ensure that employment decisions are fair, defensible, and aligned with legal and organizational standards, while reducing the risk that automated systems produce unintended or discriminatory outcomes.

For more information, click here.

GIS helps employers navigate evolving hiring regulations by providing the tools, expertise, and guidance needed to build responsible, ethical, and compliant hiring practices. Our team partners with organizations to help implement thoughtful screening and adjudication processes that support fair decision-making in an increasingly automated hiring environment. If you have questions regarding your current hiring process, please contact us.

Effective January 16, 2026: Illinois has officially joined the growing number of states adopting “Clean Slate” legislation, a law that fundamentally changes how certain criminal records are sealed. The new statute introduces an automated record-sealing process for qualifying non-violent offenses, reducing long-standing barriers tied to criminal history while reshaping what employers and screening providers can access moving forward.

What Is the Illinois Clean Slate Act?

Illinois’ Clean Slate Act creates a statewide system that automatically seals eligible criminal records after an individual has completed their sentence and remained crime-free for a designated waiting period. Rather than requiring individuals to navigate a petition-based court process, record sealing will occur without action from the individual once eligibility criteria are met.

The law applies only to offenses that are already eligible for sealing under existing Illinois law and does not expand eligibility to new offense types.

Which Records Qualify for Automatic Sealing?

• Eligible misdemeanor convictions are sealed after a two-year waiting period
• Eligible felony convictions are sealed after a three-year waiting period
• Dismissed or reversed charges, along with the related arrest records, are sealed automatically once the case concludes

Most qualifying records involve non-violent misdemeanors and Class 1–4 non-violent felonies.

Which Records Are Not Eligible?

Records involving serious or violent offenses remain excluded. These include, but are not limited to:

• Murder and homicide-related offenses
• Sex-related crimes
• Class X felonies and other violent offenses
• Domestic battery and violations of protective orders
• DUI and reckless driving
• Stalking and certain animal welfare violations

These records will continue to appear where legally permitted and remain accessible to law enforcement and courts.

Who Can Still Access Sealed Records?

While sealed records will no longer be available to private background screening companies or the general public, certain entities will retain lawful access, including:

• Law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and courts
• Employers and licensing bodies governed by state or federal regulations (such as schools, financial institutions, public transportation agencies, and other safety-sensitive industries)
• Authorized state agencies conducting fingerprint-based background checks through the Illinois State Police

For most standard employment screenings, sealed records will no longer be reportable.

Why This Matters

The Clean Slate Act introduces meaningful changes to hiring and background screening practices. As eligible records are automatically sealed, employers may see fewer criminal records appear on background check reports over time. This shift makes adherence to fair chance hiring laws and individualized assessment requirements even more important. Employers operating in regulated or safety-sensitive industries should review whether fingerprint-based screening or statutory access exemptions apply to their hiring programs. In light of these changes, many organizations may also need to update their background screening policies to reflect evolving limitations on record access. Failure to align hiring practices with the new law could increase legal and compliance risk.

Employer Guidance

Implementation will take place over a multi-year timeline, providing employers and background screening providers time to adjust. Organizations operating in Illinois, particularly those hiring at scale or across multiple states, should begin reviewing their background screening packages and disclosure language, evaluating existing adverse action workflows, and confirming compliance with Illinois-specific requirements. Employers in regulated or safety-sensitive industries should also assess whether any statutory access exceptions apply to their screening programs.

For more information, click here.

GIS is dedicated to helping organizations navigate compliance throughout the background screening process. As employment and screening laws continue to evolve at the state and local level, our team is here to help. If you have questions about your state’s background screening requirements or how recent legal changes may impact your hiring process, please contact us.

In 2026, new legal and regulatory changes are pushing employers beyond simple compliance checklists and toward screening processes that are thoughtful, defensible, and well documented. It has become clear that background screening is no longer the only measure of compliance. How that check is conducted, interpreted, documented, and acted upon now matters just as much.

This shift is being driven by a convergence of clean slate legislation, expanding fair chance requirements, screening relevant to the role, and a growing expectation that employers understand their screening decisions. For employers, this means compliance risk is no longer isolated to a single adverse action or missed notice. It lives within the overall integrity of their screening program.

Clean Slate Laws

Automated record sealing and expungement processes now operate in many jurisdictions with little or no notice to employers. Records that were once legally reportable can become restricted overnight, creating real risk for organizations relying on outdated data. In 2026, compliance increasingly depends on whether screening results reflect what is legally reportable at the time a decision is made, not what existed prior. Employers are expected to demonstrate that their screening process actively monitors court data, applies jurisdiction-specific rules, and suppresses records that should no longer be considered.

Fair Chance Act

Many jurisdictions now regulate not only when criminal history can be reviewed, but how employers must evaluate it. Individualized assessments, consistent decision-making, and proper notice timing are no longer best practices, they are enforceable expectations. Regulators and plaintiffs’ attorneys are increasingly focused on whether employers can explain their decision-making process in a clear, consistent, and documented way. In this environment, informal or inconsistent workflows present real exposure.

Credit History

More states and local jurisdictions continue to limit the use of credit checks to narrowly defined roles, placing the burden on employers to demonstrate job-relatedness and business necessity. Blanket screening policies that once felt efficient now pose unnecessary risk. In 2026, compliance requires thoughtful alignment between role requirements and screening scope, supported by documentation that explains why specific searches are used.

Drug Screening

As cannabis laws continue to vary by state, employers are navigating conflicting requirements related to testing, accommodations, and adverse action. Many jurisdictions now expect employers to define safety-sensitive roles with precision and apply testing programs accordingly. Adding to the challenge is increased awareness of test evasion methods, which has placed additional emphasis on collection integrity and program oversight. The question employers face is no longer whether they test, but whether their testing program is intentional, compliant, and defensible.

Employer Guidance

As we enter 2026, employers should focus on building thoughtful adjudication processes, consistent hiring policies, and ensuring decisions are made in a fair and defensible way. As screening requirements continue to vary by state and city, employers can no longer rely on outdated policies.

 Employers benefit from working with an accredited background screening company that stays ahead of changing laws, helps translate regulatory requirements into practical hiring guidance, and supports consistent decision-making across the organization.

At GIS, we view compliance as an ongoing process, not a static checklist. Our approach is built around accuracy, jurisdiction-specific expertise, and transparency at every stage of the screening lifecycle. In today’s environment, compliance isn’t just about accessing data, it’s about having a partner who helps you use that information responsibly and confidently.

GIS continuously monitors legal and regulatory developments that affect background screening and integrates those changes into our searches, reporting practices, and workflows. We focus on ensuring that only legally reportable information is delivered, that adverse action processes align with applicable compliance requirements. Just as importantly, we help clients understand what their results mean and how to apply them.

The compliance landscape will continue to evolve, but the direction is clear. Background screening is no longer about checking a box. It is about building a process that is accurate, fair, and defensible. Employers who adapt to the shift will successfully manage risk, protect their organizations, and hire with confidence.

Every January, National Human Trafficking Prevention Month calls attention to a crime that often goes unseen but has lasting impacts on individuals, families, and communities. Human trafficking affects people across industries and regions, frequently leaving survivors with long-term consequences that extend well beyond the immediate harm.

Preventing trafficking requires more than enforcement after the fact. It depends on awareness, accountability, and systems designed to reduce harm, especially for individuals who have already been exploited.

At GIS, prevention means taking responsibility not only for safety and compliance, but also for fairness and human dignity.

Prevention Begins with Awareness and Safeguards

Human trafficking can intersect with employment, housing, transportation, and other systems where background screening is used. Survivors may carry records or data points connected to their exploitation, often through no fault of their own, that can create barriers long after they have escaped trafficking.

This is why responsible screening practices matter.

GIS has implemented methods designed to give victims the opportunity to block adverse items that may result from documented human trafficking circumstances, where legally permitted. These safeguards help ensure that survivors are not unfairly penalized by information tied to their victimization.

Supporting Individuals Through Education and Transparency

Awareness is only effective when it is paired with access to clear information. Survivors and advocates often face challenges navigating screening processes, understanding rights, or knowing how to request a review or correction.

To help address this, GIS provides resources, information, and step-by-step instructions on our website to support individuals who may be impacted by trafficking-related records. These materials are designed to promote transparency, understanding, and access to appropriate next steps.

By making this information available, GIS aims to reduce confusion, empower individuals, and support fair outcomes.

A Shared Commitment Beyond January

National Human Trafficking Prevention Month is an opportunity to reflect on how systems can either create barriers or offer support. For GIS, this means continually evaluating how our processes impact real people, especially those who have experienced exploitation.

Our commitment extends beyond compliance. It includes ongoing education, thoughtful policy implementation, and collaboration with organizations working to protect vulnerable populations.

Human trafficking prevention is not limited to one month. It is a year-round responsibility that requires awareness, action, and compassion embedded into the systems we build and the decisions we make.

For more information regarding National Human Trafficking Awareness Month, click here.

A Closer Look 

House Bill 2179 proposes new restrictions on pre-employment marijuana testing in Massachusetts. If enacted, the legislation would prevent most employers from requiring cannabis testing before making a conditional job offer. Employers would still be permitted to conduct marijuana testing after an offer is extended, but the results generally could not be used to deny employment.

The bill does allow for important exceptions that include:

• Safety-sensitive positions
• Roles subject to federal drug testing mandates
• Positions governed by collective bargaining agreements that require such testing.

Outside of these limited categories, however, cannabis screening would no longer serve as a barrier to employment for most private-sector applicants. This approach reflects a growing legislative view that lawful marijuana use outside of work should not automatically disqualify qualified candidates from employment.

Post-Offer Testing Raises Practical Questions

A key element of H. 2179 is its approach to post-offer marijuana testing. The bill allows employers to continue testing after a conditional offer is made, but limits how those results may be used for certain positions. This framework places greater emphasis on how results are interpreted and applied.

For employers, this reinforces the importance of policy alignment and compliance-driven testing programs. Drug testing remains a valuable tool for workplace safety, regulatory compliance, and consistency in hiring particularly for safety-sensitive roles, federally regulated positions, and other jobs that fall within the bill’s exceptions. Even in roles where employment decisions cannot be based solely on a marijuana result, testing can still support documentation, policy enforcement, and broader risk-management strategies.

From a screening perspective, the legislation highlights the need for employers to work with experienced providers who understand evolving state laws and can help ensure testing processes are structured appropriately including testing when permitted, applying results correctly, and maintaining defensible, compliant hiring practices.

Part of a Broader National Trend

Across the country, lawmakers are increasingly limiting how employers can use marijuana test results in hiring and employment decisions:

• New York, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh prohibit most pre-employment marijuana testing.
• Minnesota restricted cannabis testing for most roles when recreational use became legal and imposed additional notice requirements when action is taken against medical cannabis users.
• Montana, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Washington, D.C. protect employees from adverse actions based on lawful off-duty marijuana use.
• California and Washington prohibit employment decisions based solely on tests that detect non-psychoactive THC metabolites.

While the details vary by jurisdiction, the trend is consistent. Policymakers are questioning whether marijuana test results, particularly those that do not demonstrate impairment, should continue to carry the same weight in employment decisions.

Employer Guidance

As marijuana laws continue to evolve, employers should stay informed and proactive. Reviewing drug testing policies, understanding where testing is legally required, and evaluating  approaches to workplace safety can help organizations remain compliant while adapting to a changing legal landscape.

For employers operating in multiple jurisdictions, the complexity only increases. Partnering with a knowledgeable  and accredited background screening provider can help ensure that drug testing programs align with current laws and reflect best practices as new legislation emerges.

Click here for more information.

If you have any questions or concerns about your current drug screening processes, please contact us. 

Stories of individuals using fake degrees or licenses continue to make headlines, underscoring the growing threat of credential fraud. One of the latest examples comes out of Connecticut, where the state’s Board of Examiners for Nursing revoked nearly 80 licenses linked to “Operation Nightingale”, a sweeping federal investigation into fraudulent nursing degrees. The scheme involved roughly two dozen for-profit nursing schools in Florida that allegedly issued fake diplomas and transcripts, enabling individuals to sit for the National Council Licensure Examination (NCLEX) without completing the required classroom or clinical training.

Federal authorities estimate that more than 7,500 individuals across at least six states and Washington, D.C. were connected to these fraudulent credentials. While state boards are working to revoke licenses obtained under false pretenses, the risk to patient safety and organizational integrity remains significant.

Education Verification Matters

While professional license verifications confirm whether an individual is currently authorized to practice, they may not reflect the authenticity of the education or training behind it. Licenses are typically granted based on completion of an accredited education program. If the underlying degree is fraudulent, the license itself may have been obtained under false pretenses. Without verifying education history alongside the license, employers risk hiring individuals who lack the proper training and qualifications, ultimately putting patients and organizations at risk.

Employer Guidance

Conduct Comprehensive Education Verification: Confirm that degrees were earned from legitimate, accredited institutions. This includes checking enrollment dates, graduation status, and program details.

Pair Education Checks with License Verification: Verifying a license is essential, but it should be complemented by confirming the legitimacy of the education that qualified the candidate for that license.

Use Trusted Screening Partners: Partnering with a reputable and accredited background screening provider ensures access to reliable verification processes and compliance with state and federal regulations.

Implement Ongoing Monitoring: Continuous license monitoring can alert employers to disciplinary actions or revocations after hire, helping maintain workforce integrity.

The Bigger Picture

Fraudulent credentials aren’t just a regulatory issue, they’re a safety issue. Employers in healthcare and other sensitive sectors must take proactive steps to ensure every professional entrusted with care has the proper training and qualifications.

Click here for more information.

GIS is here to help keep your organization safe and compliant. If you have any questions about your background screening process or need guidance on strengthening your verification practices, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Choosing the correct background screening provider is not only important for a companies compliance and risk mitigation but also for a candidates experience. The background check is often one of the final steps before onboarding, and it can set the tone for a candidates experience with your organization.

For employers, selecting the right background screening partner isn’t just about accuracy and turnaround time, it’s about protecting the candidate experience and, ultimately, your company. A smooth, respectful, and transparent screening process reinforces your professionalism and builds trust. On the other hand, delays, unclear instructions, or an invasive process can leave candidates feeling uneasy. Sometimes enough to reconsider their decision to join.

The Right Screening Partner Makes All the Difference

Efficiency and Speed: A background screening provider with optimized workflows and seamless integrations can significantly reduce turnaround time. This not only helps employers onboard candidates faster but also keeps applicants engaged during a critical phase of the hiring process. Delays in screening can lead to frustration or even cause candidates to accept offers elsewhere.

User-Friendly Technology: Modern candidates expect digital convenience. Providers that offer mobile-friendly platforms, intuitive portals, and real-time status updates create a smoother experience for applicants. These features reduce confusion and minimize the need for support, allowing candidates to feel more in control and informed throughout the process.

Clear Communication: The best screening partners prioritize transparency. They provide branded messaging and educational tools that clearly explain each step of the process, expected timelines, and how personal data will be handled. This level of clarity builds trust and reassures candidates that they’re being treated fairly and professionally.

Compliance with Empathy: While legal compliance is non-negotiable, how it’s executed matters. A strong provider ensures that adverse action notices and other sensitive communications are handled with respect and care. This empathetic approach helps reduces the risk of negative perceptions or reputational harm.

Support When It’s Needed: Candidates often have questions or concerns during the screening process. Providers with responsive support teams and accessible self-service options can quickly address issues, preventing unnecessary delays and confusion. A reliable support system reinforces the candidate’s confidence in both the screening provider and the hiring company.

The Business Impact

A candidate’s experience with background screening can directly influence whether they accept the job and how they talk about your company afterward. If the process is slow, confusing, or unorganized, candidates may disengage or even drop out entirely. On the other hand, a screening provider that offers speed, clarity, and support helps you maintain momentum in the hiring process and reinforces your reputation as a professional, candidate-centric employer. In today’s competitive market, that edge can make all the difference.

At GIS, we understand how important it is to work professionally with candidates, ensuring they feel informed, respected, and supported throughout the process. That’s why we invest in the latest technology, offer person-to-person contact, and prioritize both compliance and efficiency. Our goal is to help employers onboard faster while leaving candidates with a positive impression that reflects your brand’s values.

If you’re wondering how you can streamline your background screening process and give your candidates the best background screening experience, please contact us. We’d love to help you build a process that works for both your team and your talent.