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 After Wills completed the background check, the manager at the Buford Starbucks store rescinded his employment offer without warning.

It wasn’t until several days after his job offer was rescinded that Wills received a copy of his background check report.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

  • 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.