Blog

 
     

U.S. District Court Dismisses FCRA Lawsuit Against Home Depot

By Michael Klazema on 11/16/2017
California’s Central District U.S. District Court made headlines last month by dismissing an FCRA lawsuit against Home Depot. Per a report from The National Law Review, the court ruled that the plaintiff in the case lacked the proper standing to pursue the lawsuit.

The plaintiff’s case against Home Depot accused the home improvement supplies retailer of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act in its handling of prospective employee background checks. As coverage explains, the lawsuit alleged that Home Depot did not properly comply with the FCRA when notifying the plaintiff that she would be the subject of a background check. The plaintiff also claimed that Home Depot did not go through the correct process of obtaining her authorization to run the background check.

The FCRA requires employers to follow a rigid set of guidelines when conducting pre-employment background screenings, reports note. For instance, the FCRA says that employers must present candidates with background check disclosure forms that are separate from all other paperwork, not bundled with the job application or any other materials. The exception to this rule is the authorization form a candidate signs, which can legally be included alongside the disclosure.

As reports explain, the plaintiff argued that Home Depot violated the FCRA by including a liability waiver with the background check disclosure and authorization. She claimed these violations rendered her employment background check invalid. What the plaintiff did not do was claim any injury suffered due to the alleged FCRA violations.

This point proved crucial in the U.S. District Court ruling, coverage notes. The court ruled that the client lacked injury-in-fact standing in accordance with Article III of the FCRA. Article III standing requires a plaintiff to present a “concrete injury” to sue for FCRA violations. If a plaintiff cannot prove that he or she was harmed by a violation of FCRA guidelines, he or she does not have grounds to sue over that violation. The court cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in last year’s Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins case to justify the decision.

The plaintiff did not connect the noncompliant background check disclosure to a loss of employment opportunity or any similar consequences. Reports indicate the plaintiff was seeking to register a nationwide class of Home Depot candidates affected by the FCRA compliance violation, coverage notes.



Sources: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/district-court-dismisses-putative-fcra-class-action-lack-standing
Industry News
  FCRA

Tag Cloud
Categories
Recent Posts

Latest News

  • July 17 — Hourly Employee Screening: What Makes It Unique and Important infographic?Modern employers conduct background checks on most of the people they hire. These checks are most often used to screen full-time salaried workers. Part-timers and hourly employees are typically less likely to face a thorough background check or even go through a background screening at all. According to a survey conducted by HR.com, 67 percent of employers screen all of their part-time employees, compared to 83 percent of their full-time employees.
  • July 17 A Kentucky school district recently decided to stop paying for volunteer background checks. Going forward, volunteers will be expected to cover the cost of their own checks, which is $10 per person.
  • July 12 Seeking fresh employees for businesses, some states seek to reduce the number of people denied employment based on old or nonviolent crimes.
  • July 11 Multinational aerospace company - Safran Group - trusts backgroundchecks.com to screen new hires, The products they manufacture can have major implications for aircraft safety and worldwide security. As such, the company needs to be extremely careful and deliberate about who it trusts to join the organization.
  • July 11 Recently cited for driving too fast? Here’s what a speeding ticket will do to your background check report.
  • July 10

    Could your business be vulnerable to employee theft? Protect yourself with more thorough background checks.


  • July 09 While Social Security Numbers aren’t required for criminal history checks, they can be beneficial. Here’s why.
  • July 05

    In June, Chicago Public Schools came under fire after a Chicago Tribune piece accused the district of not protecting students from sexual abusers. The district has announced plans to run background checks on all employees.


  • July 04 — How important are volunteer background checks? Do they even matter?
    Organizations that rely in part on volunteer labor consistently find themselves asking these questions. The assumption is usually that volunteer background checks are less important than background checks for full-time or part-time employees. According to a CareerBuilder survey from 2016, 72 percent of employers conduct background checks on all employees. A parallel statistic isn’t even available for volunteer checks. They are less common – and less valued.
  • July 03 #MeToo harassment allegations continue to reshape workplaces in every industry. As a result, many companies are looking to safeguard themselves from liability.