Employee applicant succesfully disputes entries on background report, but is disqualified anyway

By Michael Klazema on 2/26/2012

Eric C. Johnson v. ADP Screening and Selection Services, Inc. et al., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18361(D. Minn. Feb. 24, 2011)

Facts:  Plaintiff claimed that Defendant employment agency Robert Half International, Inc. (“RHI”) violated the FCRA following the running of a background check on him as a prospective employment candidate. The background report stated that Plaintiff had numerous criminal convictions in Minnesota, Texas and Virginia.  RHI sent Plaintiff a letter stating that it had placed his employment application on hold as a result of the report and included a copy of it and a summary of rights under the FCRA. The notification letter further stated that Plaintiff could   dispute the information, and that Plaintiff had ten business days in which to submit a revised report to RHI if the dispute resulted in a change to his background report. Plaintiff subsequently   disputed the report. Plaintiff was informed that the investigation might take thirty days.  Soon thereafter, and before the investigation was completed, RHI sent a letter to Plaintiff stating that he had been disqualified as an employment candidate. Defendant ADP Screening and Selection Services, Inc. (“ADP”) subsequently sent letters to Plaintiff indicating that the criminal records from Texas and Virginia would be removed from his background report. ADP also informed RHI of this investigation result.  Despite this result, RHI decided not to overturn its decision to disqualify Plaintiff. Plaintiff claimed that RHI violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3) by disqualifying him fourteen days after it sent the required FCRA notice instead of waiting a longer period which would have been “reasonable” under the statute. Defendant RHI filed its summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s claim, claiming that the FCRA does not mandate a waiting period between the notice and subsequent adverse action. The Court agreed and granted RHI’s motion in its entirety.  
  • Pre-Adverse Action Notice Requirements.The FCRA is not an employment statute, but it imposes a duty on employers to provide prospective employees with information about their consumer reports. Thus, under 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3)(A), before a person takes an adverse employment action against a consumer based in whole or in part on a consumer report, the person intending to take such adverse action shall provide to the consumer to whom the report relates a copy of the report and a description in writing of the rights of the consumer.  
  • Adverse Action Notice Requirements.  The FCRA only requires a person intending to take adverse action to provide a copy of the consumer report and FCRA rights before taking action.  It does not mandate a waiting period between the notice and the adverse action.  Note: the Court noted that Congress's use of the word "before" shows that there must be some time between notice and action.
  • Adverse Action Notice Requirements.  Although Plaintiff argued that the time between notice and action must be a "reasonable" amount of time, and raised the point that the FCRA gave credit reporting agencies thirty days in which to investigate disputed information, the Court found that Plaintiff’s interpretation would create an unreasonable constraint on employers.  Specifically, the Court noted that if Plaintiff’s argument was to be adopted, each time an employer wanted to hire, it would be prevented from taking action if the consumer report of any applicant -- even one that it had no intention of hiring -- contained information that reduced that applicant's competitiveness. The employer would then have to place the entire process on hold and leave the position unfilled until the reporting agency had thirty days to investigate. Likewise, Defendant RHI’s interpretation rendered the term "before" meaningless, because if adopted, an employer could deliver the notice and then take adverse action within seconds.Note: The Court did not adopt either interpretation, and found that waiting 4 days (which is what took place between Plaintiff and RHI) provided Plaintiff ample opportunity to dispute the report, even under a “reasonable” standard. The Court also held that nothing in the FCRA required an employer to consider any correction that a reporting agency might make based on an investigation

About Strasburger & Price

Attorneys from Strasburger & Price, LLP involved in FCRA litigation have been monitoring and analyzing the legislative and caselaw developments related to this area of the law.  This group of lawyers will continue to follow these developments throughout the coming months to help you understand how it impacts your business as well as to help you make the necessary decisions to succeed under this ever changing area of credit reporting and employment screening/criminal and credit background check compliance.

Click here to find out about our auhors.

Tag Cloud
Recent Posts

Latest News

  • 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.
  • February 27 Governor Asa Hutchinson signed House Bill 2216 which amends the employer’s directives regarding a current or prospective employee’s social media account.
  • February 23 A Texas summer camp is in the spotlight after an unflattering investigation from a local news channel. The case has some parents asking what they can do to vet summer camp programs before enrolling their kids.