Pizza Chain and Major Bank Sued in Class Actions for Technical FCRA Violations

By Michael Klazema on 12/20/2011

Plaintiff's law firms are suing large employers for technical violations of the disclosure requirements of the FCRA. At the beginning of the summer, we noted a class action where a plaintiff class asserted that the inclusion of the FCRA disclosure in the job application entitled the class to statutory damages of $670,000 to $6,700,000. Shortly after that, we noted a case where a company had settled a claim that the FCRA disclosure was invalid because it was not separate for $1,200,000.

We now see that a plaintiff's firm has filed class action cases against a major pizza chain and a major bank. In the pizza chain case, the plaintiff alleges that the disclosure is invalid because the disclosure form included a release of liability. In the bank case, the plaintiff alleges that the bank included its FCRA disclosure in a document covering all of the terms and conditions of employment and which contained a release of liability, instead of having the disclosure in a separate document, as the FCRA requires.

This type of claim appears to be the plaintiffs firms' favorite type of claim right now, because it is simple to prove and opens up the possibility of statutory damages ($100 to $1,000 per defective disclosure), uncapped punitive damages, and attorney's fees.

Employers should immediately review their disclosure and authorization documents and, if unsure about their compliance, put the disclosure in a separate document. Employers should ensure that their FCRA disclosures do not include a release of liability. Even if employers are certain that their forms comply with the FCRA, putting the disclosure in a separate document makes the employer a more difficult target for a class action. The evolving best practice is therefore to separate the disclosure from everything else.


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.