Legislation and Compliance Update - Employers Settle FCRA Documentation Class Actions for $5.9 Million

By Michael Klazema on 6/6/2011

First Transit and First Student are apparently related companies that provide transportation services to school. They recently settled class action claims against them for three alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act:

1.    Failing to properly disclose that it would seek a consumer report on the employee to approximately 143, 577 people;

2.    failing to obtain the employee’s authorization before obtaining the consumer report on about 29,243 people; and

3.    using the consumer report adversely without giving the consumer notices before and on taking adverse action on about 7,191 people.


One important lesson from this case is in how to make the required disclosure. The FCRA requires an employer to present the disclosure to the consumer “in a document that consists solely of the disclosure,” but allows the employer to include the required authorization in that document. For example, the disclosure must not be in the employment application. According to one of the pleadings in the case, the document included a release of liability for the consumer reporting agency. Since the case was settled, we can’t know whether the plaintiffs would have won, but drafting to the most extreme possible interpretation of the FCRA could have avoided the claim. Employers should review their disclosure and authorization documents and, if unsure about their compliance, put the disclosure on to a separate piece of paper.


Another important lesson is the impact of big, disruptive events. The websites of First Transit and First Student both reflect that they acquired Laidlaw in 2007. Large acquisitions like this one are usually followed by rapid consolidation, including the acquiring company’s application its pre-existing policies to the employees of the acquired company. According to a pleading in this case, the companies ran background checks on thousands of employees acquired in the acquisition without first obtaining authorizations. One can guess that the acquiring companies thought that the employees’ files would have everything needed to run a new background check. Employers should check their files before relying on old disclosures and authorizations for new background checks and, if unsure about their compliance, make new disclosures and obtain new authorizations.


In the resulting settlement, class members received a total of $1.2 million for the first claim and $2.1 million for the second claim. To collect these amounts, they did not have to show that any adverse action was taken or that the reports were inaccurate. These were simply claims of a technical failure to have the right documentation.


Information about the settlement is available at

Tag Cloud
Recent Posts

Latest News

  • March 20 Employers who use E-Verify must follow the proper steps and procedures when they receive a “tentative non-confirmation notice” from either the Social Security Administration or Department of Homeland Security. Failure to follow the proper procedures can cost employers both time and money. 
  • March 20

    Four Department of Commerce employees are out after their background checks resulted in security clearance denials. All four had worked high-ranking positions for months despite incomplete background checks.

  • March 15 As more states legalize the recreational use of cannabis, they contend with the emergence of new industries surrounding marijuana cultivation and production. 
  • March 14 In most cases, it is easy to determine where an issue might show up on a pre-employment background check. Citations for traffic violations or reckless driving charges will appear on a motor vehicle record check. Verdicts in a civil court case will show on a civil court background check. And criminal convictions—from petty theft to violent felonies—show up on criminal background checks.
  • March 13 How many years back do employment background checks go? This question can have multiple different answers depending on the situation.
  • March 13 A new bill in Florida would require landlords of apartment complexes to present tenants with verifications of employee background checks to give them peace of mind the people working in and around their homes are trustworthy.
  • March 08 Police officers working with the University of Texas at Arlington recently arrested a man who had avoided police capture on a warrant out of Oregon for nearly two decades. The man, whose real name is Daniel Charles Ray Hanson, spent those 17 years using a variety of fake names and identification documents to move around the country, often engaging with educational institutions under false pretenses. Police say Hanson regularly went by at least three different aliases. He sports a rap sheet that stretches back to an arson conviction in 1995. 
  • March 07

    The Future of EEOC Guidance in Texas Is Up in the Air

    The EEOC issued guidance in 2012 warning employers about the dangers of enforcing categorical policies to bar candidates with criminal histories. That guidance is not enforceable in Texas thanks to a recent court ruling.

  • March 05 Vermont is the latest state to restrict employers’ access to and use of social media accounts of employees and applicants. 
  • March 01 In an age of "industry disruptors" turning established business models on their heads, companies such as Uber and Lyft rely on a unique workforce of individuals outside the traditional employer-employee context. Uber calls them "partners" while other businesses refer to them as "independent contractors," the official classification these individuals use for tax purposes. Recently, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) revealed they had warned a business, Postmates, for misclassifying their staff as independent contractors. In the NLRB's determination, these individuals were employees.