Blog

 
     

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
Categories
Recent Posts

Latest News

  • December 04 Chicago Public Schools has dismissed hundreds of employees, coaches, vendors, and volunteers based on background check findings. The district recently vowed to re-check the majority of its 68,000 employees after a Chicago Tribune investigation revealed holes in its background check policies.
  • November 29 Striving to create a safer environment more conducive to productive training and leadership development, the Army has recently moved to adopt a uniform policy of background checks for certain roles. 
  • November 27 California’s biggest public school district is waiving the cost of volunteer background checks. The move is meant to encourage more family - and community members to get involved with the school district.
  • November 22 Contractors play an important role in the workforce, delivering services to both individuals and organizations. Vetting contractors for suitability continues to be a challenge, as two recent articles prove.
  • November 21 When it comes to background and pre-employment checks, it can be instructive to look at the characteristics of the ten most massive U.S. employers.
  • November 20 The #MeToo movement is bringing about legislative changes employers need to know about. We review some of the laws recently passed in California.
  • November 19

    Will a criminal conviction show up on your background check forever? In most states, there is a year limit for how long background check companies can report older criminal information.


  • November 15

    Replacing an inconsistent array of procedures, Ontario's government has passed into law a reform act intended to clarify how police departments should handle requests for information to be used in background checks. 


  • November 14 The federal government has vowed to cut its backlog of security clearance background checks in half by spring. Currently, the backlog is approximately 600,000 names strong.
  • November 12 To ensure the best hires, DFWSPF has implemented a stringent employee screening process—one that includes background searches through backgroundchecks.com.