Starbucks Facing a Potential Class-Action Suit for Alleged FCRA Violations

By Michael Klazema on 10/29/2017
Starbucks is facing a potential class-action lawsuit over alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Per a report from, the coffee chain is the defendant in a proposed class-action suit filed in Georgia on September 21. The lawsuit states that Starbucks failed to execute its employee background check policies in accordance with FCRA guidance.

The lawsuit claims that Starbucks used background check findings to disqualify candidates from job consideration but did not provide the rejected candidates copies of relevant background check reports or inform them of their rights under the FCRA. If true, this practice is not compliant with the FCRA.

According to the FCRA, if an employer wishes to disqualify a candidate based on background check findings, it must first:

· Notify the candidate about the adverse hiring decision
· Provide the candidate with a free copy of the background check report that led to the decision
· Give the candidate the name and contact information of the company that prepared the background check report
· Tell the candidate that the background check company did not make any hiring decisions
· Inform the candidate that he or she has the right to request a second free copy of the background check report within 62 days
· Notify the candidate that he or she can dispute any inaccuracies in the background check report with the company that prepared the report.

The lawsuit against Starbucks accuses the company of failing to follow these steps in a fashion that satisfies the requirements of the FCRA.

Per coverage, the lead plaintiff in the case is Kevin Wills, who applied for a position with a Starbucks store in Buford, Georgia in the fall of 2015. Starbucks offered Wills the position pending the completion of a criminal background check. After Wills completed the background check, the manager at the Buford Starbucks store rescinded his employment offer without warning.

It wasn’t until several days after his job offer was rescinded that Wills received a copy of his background check report. The document was a background check report for “Kevin Willis”—a misspelling of Wills’ actual name. Wills’ background check had returned the record of Kevin W. Willis from the state of Minnesota. While Wills’ record is clean, Willis’s wasn’t. The background check report included two felony convictions for domestic violence—convictions that Wills claims cost him his job opportunity with Starbucks.

The lawsuit alleges that while Starbucks and their background check company did furnish Wills with a copy of his background check report, they did so too late in the process. Wills and his attorneys argue that Starbucks would have had to provide the background check report before taking adverse action to comply with the FCRA. According to the lawsuit, the delay—as well as Starbucks’ failure to notify Wills of his rights under the FCRA—meant the Wills was unable to dispute the inaccurate details of the background check.

The FCRA stipulates that employers must provide a candidate with a copy of his or her background check at least five business days before taking adverse action. Alongside the background check report, employers must provide candidates with a copy of “Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act,” a document prepared by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Reports note that Wills and his lawyers are seeking to certify a nationwide class of individuals who claim to have had similar issues with the Starbucks hiring process since September 20, 2015. The lawsuit seeks between $100 and $1,000 in damages per violation.

Starbucks has denied the allegations and stated that its background check and hiring policies are 100% FCRA compliant.


Tag Cloud
Recent Posts

Latest News

  • June 20 Repeat background checks are becoming more common, with companies in India leading the charge. What does this trend look like, and how can employers embrace it now to stay ahead of the curve?
  • June 19

    Every federal job involves a background check of some kind. These background checks and how they are evaluated vary based on job, department, and security clearance level.

  • June 18

  • June 14 Ban the box laws aim to improve opportunities for employment. Could they have the opposite effect instead?
  • June 13 Jacobs Petroleum Products is a regional petroleum company that operates throughout Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Maryland. Apart from their employees carrying much responsibility and have frequent contact with customers, the company’s hiring also tends to be segmented since individual store managers are responsible for hiring talent for their own stores. In this employment landscape, Jacobs Petroleum Products needed a reliable and effective way to screen its new hires for criminal infractions and other red flags.
  • June 12

    The University of Wisconsin System may tweak its hiring and reference check processes. The potential changes come after one of UW’s assistant deans was accused of sexual harassment.

  • June 07 Stories of abuse by coaches in youth sports leagues continue to crop up around the country, but rules and guidelines remain patchy and enforcement is often lacking. The struggle to implement an effective system continues nationwide.
  • June 07 Financial background checks, usually referred to as credit history checks, can be an effective way to find out if a candidate is fit to handle accounts, financial data, and other assets at your business.
  • June 06 The Society for Human Resource Management and the Charles Koch Institute recently commissioned a survey to find out how willing employers were to hire people with criminal records. The study indicates that managers, HR professionals, and employees themselves are becoming more comfortable with the idea of hiring and working with ex-offenders.
  • June 04 Are fingerprint background checks the gold standard for employee screening, or are they overhyped? We look at some of the myths and misconceptions surrounding these checks.