Elizabeth Warren introduces bill to ban employers from running credit reports in hiring

[TheProle]

As the US labor market comes under pressure, two senior figures in Washington are pushing to end a practice that prevents large swaths of US workers from obtaining jobs.

A bill reintroduced today by Elizabeth Warren, the senator from Massachusetts, and Steve Cohen, the representative from Tennessee, bans employers from using credit checks to vet potential hires.

Denying jobs based on a candidate’s financial history “makes no sense”, the prominent Democrats argue. It also disproportionately affects minorities.

The bill would amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to stop employers from requiring job applicants to disclose their credit history, or suggesting they should, and from procuring consumer or investigative reports on applicants. It also would prohibit credit reporting agencies from providing reports to employers, and prevent employers from disqualifying job applicants based on credit information.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/15/elizabeth-warren-credit-reports-employment

[cloudbase]

1. An outright ban is short-sighted.

For many jobs, there is absolutely no need, but for many others a good case can be made for requiring a report.

[TheProle]

2. Then she has room to negotiate

[ProfessorGAC]

4. The Only Exception I Can See...

...is banking & finance.
What others do you have in mind?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

5. Retail positions that deal with money

Like cashiers.

[ProfessorGAC]

6. Can't Agree

There aren't handling large enough sums of money to warrant a check of their financial status.
I dislike any "exception" that would target the bottom rung of employment.
Plus, if that's all you've got, you've got nothing.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

10. It would depend on how much cash is involved

Which admittedly probably isn't much these days.

Back when I was a cashier in a grocery store, we handled thousands of dollars a day in cash, but I can see where these days it would be little to no cash.

[ProfessorGAC]

12. Likely So

When I go to tge supermarket, the fraction of people paying with debit or credit cards is very high.
I haven't taken data, of course, but I'd guess easily over 80%.
But, even if it were more cash heavy, why would someone struggling financially (student debt, medical bills, major car repairs) be automatically suspect? That's making no sense to me.
A background check to see if they lied about not being a convicted felon makes more sense than checking their credit history.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

14. Then why have it for banking or finance? n/t

[Midwestern Democrat]

23. Well, the manager reconciles the register at the end of every day - and if the cash register is designed correctly, it's

pretty difficult for a cashier to steal money from the register undetected - if designed correctly, the only way a cashier could steal money from the register without getting caught is to void receipts - but the manager sees and reports these voids while doing his reconciliation and if there's more voids than would normally be expected, it sets off alarm bells.

[cloudbase]

7. Defense contractors, for one.

Any company dealing with proprietary data/manufacturing/process.
Even the clerk at the local c-store has to be trusted with handling money.

[ProfessorGAC]

9. What Does That Have To Do With Personal Finance?

Somebody struggling financially can't be trusted with proprietary data?
There's no logical connection.

[cloudbase]

13. Financial difficulties might make a person

subject to being bought off in exchange for that information.

If you've ever had a security clearance, you'd know.

[ProfessorGAC]

15. Oh, Brother

Now, I can't know logic from illogical if I never had a security clearance?
Intellectually lazy & darned convenient.
This is my last word on this.
You've got nothing.

[pacalo]

16. Those who are tempted to embezzle from their employers work in all fields.

[Melon]

19. Right. But more likely to embezzle under personal financial hardship.

[Melon]

18. My company denied a job for sales due to credit

Our sellers are remote, have access to company money for entertainment etc. and are responsible to work independent. This policy to run credit was due to two separate incidents when representative of the company used the company card on personal items due to their own cards being maxed out.

[JCMach1]

22. Jobs, nor anything else frankly should be held hostage by a private system that is both gamed, and abused by all parties

If there is a legitimate need to investigate financial worthiness, than employers should do actual real due diligence like most of the rest of the world.

I am 1000% behind not just this, but ending the system entirely.

[leftstreet]

3. DURec

[chouchou]

8. Years ago, one of my best friends had a horrible time getting a job. Her fault?

Nope. Not a bit. Her credit was Stolen, hacked or whatever. She hired a lawyer..got it back...
3 months after...again her credit was hacked. Not tell you her name but kinda' like Mary Jane.
The poor girl was in tears. I even helped her out with money.
She lucked up and met, married a wonderful man.
Turned out OK but I still understand how somebody could be totally innocent and be stamped "You don't pay your bills"

[Happy Hoosier]

11. I assume there are exceptions.

In my field, security clearances are required. Crappy credit scores and debt problems can prevent one from getting a clearance. If someone has a terrible credit score, that’s a red flag for us.

[RockCreek]

17. Too bad all of the exceptions being mentioned don't include the POTUS.

[tinrobot]

20. I actually want banking/financial employees to have credit checks.

You don't want people with shaky credit managing large sums of money.

[Iris]

21. Studies have shown that credit scores are not a predictor in these cases

https://www.nclc.org/fair-chance-in-employment-act-receives-public-hearing-advocates-lawmakers-to-assert-credit-reports-dont-predict-job-performance/#:~:text=There's%20little%20credible%20evidence%20that,Nguyen%20(D%2DAndover).