A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY ADDING SECTION 41-1-115 SO AS TO PROHIBIT AN INDIVIDUAL'S CREDIT SCORE FROM BEING THE BASIS OF ANY PERSONNEL ACTION, TO PROVIDE PENALTIES, AND TO DEFINE NECESSARY TERMS.
Summary
H3234 would add a new section to South Carolina law prohibiting an individual’s credit score from being used as the basis for any personnel action. The bill applies to employment decisions broadly, including whether to grant an interview and decisions to hire, fire, demote, or promote an employee. It also defines key terms such as consumer, credit report, credit score (including “risk predictor” or “risk score”), and consumer credit reporting agency.
The bill creates a criminal penalty for violations. A person who uses an individual’s credit score as the basis for a prohibited personnel action would be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a fine of $10 to $50, imprisonment for 10 to 30 days, or both. The act would take effect upon approval by the Governor.
Impact
If enacted, H3234 would limit employer use of consumer credit information in hiring and other personnel decisions and would add a new employment-law restriction to Title 41 of the South Carolina Code. It would affect employers, hiring managers, and any person making personnel decisions, while also indirectly affecting applicants and employees whose credit histories might otherwise be considered. The bill would also create a new misdemeanor offense and associated penalties for violations.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes, the available record suggests the measure is straightforward and policy-driven rather than highly contested in the materials provided. The caption indicates the bill is aimed at restricting credit score use in employment criteria, which generally reflects a consumer-protection and fair-hiring approach. No committee transcripts or vote history are available to show formal support or opposition.
Contention
The main policy issue is whether employers should be barred from considering credit scores in personnel actions. Supporters would likely view the bill as protecting job seekers and employees from unfair reliance on financial history, while opponents could argue that credit information may be relevant for certain positions or that the criminal penalty is unnecessary. Because no committee discussion or votes are included, no specific legislators, groups, or arguments are identified in the record provided.