Sometimes the Legislature passes a couple of statutes that are irreconcilable, and sometimes there is some tension between statutes but not so much that they can’t be harmonized. In today’s Connor v. First Student, Inc. decision, the Supreme Court holds it’s the latter situation when it comes to applying the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act and the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act to background checks on employees.
An employer argued it didn’t need to comply with the ICRAA’s requirement to get an employee’s written authorization before starting a background investigation, because it had complied with the CCRAA’s less stringent requirements and because ICRAA is unconstitutionally vague in overlapping with the CCRAA. The court’s unanimous opinion by Justice Ming Chin rejects the argument, concluding that “potential employers can comply with both statutes without undermining the purpose of either” and that “[a]ny partial overlap between the statutes does not render one superfluous or unconstitutionally vague.”
The court resolves a conflict in Court of Appeal opinions, affirming the Second District, Division Four, and disapproving two 2007 decisions by the Fourth District, Division Three.