California recently became the seventh state to prohibit credit checks in making employment decisions. Effective January 1, 2012, the law outlaws most employee credit checks. It states that employers may only use consumer credit reports when hiring for:

• Managerial positions
• Prospective law enforcement officers
• Jobs that provide access to consumer credit card applications
• Positions in the state Justice Department
• Jobs in which the employee would have access to confidential information
• Positions where the employee would be a signatory on a bank or credit card account
• Jobs in which the employee would have access to cash totaling $10,000 or more

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission held hearings in October around the issue of employee credit checks, which some employers see as a signal that additional legislation could be coming.

One concern is that more people have experienced damaged credit ratings in the wake of the economic crisis. However, employers’ groups said that it is wrong for the government to infringe on the ability to screen out applicants who have the potential to damage or bankrupt a company.

In addition, the patchwork of statutes being enacted by various states makes it more difficult for national companies to stay in compliance, say employer representatives.

Experts say that it’s important for employers to be extremely consistent in how they apply employee credit screening policies. It’s also a good idea to talk to prospective employees about any problems revealed in credit reports.

A 2007 lawsuit that accused Bloomberg L.P. of routinely discriminating against pregnant women and mothers was dismissed by a judge in Manhattan. The U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska said that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) failed to provide sufficient evidence that Bloomberg engaged in a “pattern or practice” of discrimination.

The lawsuit alleged that Bloomberg reduced pay for pregnant women or women who recently returned from maternity leave; demoted them; excluded them from management or subjected them to stereotypes about female caregivers in violation of U.S. law.

While allowing some individual claims to proceed in the case, the judge rejected the EEOC’s claim based on a lack of statistical evidence of discrimination. “Here, much of the evidence appears to be the EEOC’s claims that individuals were unhappy with the amount of a rise or unhappy with a denial of a transfer or unhappy about not receiving a promotion,” she said.

Further, the judge acknowledged that individuals who spend more time away from work will face more challenges in terms of advancing, especially in a “company like Bloomberg, which explicitly makes all-out dedication its expectation.” Essentially, the decision to make family a priority over work comes with consequences for anyone—not just pregnant women and mothers.

A Bloomberg spokesman said that the ruling confirms what the company has known all along: that the evidence would be on the company’s side and that the case is without merit.