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.

Industry News

Tag Cloud
Recent Posts

Latest News

  • April 19

    In a post-Penn State scandal world, universities are more aware than ever of the need to protect students by vetting faculty. The extent of this vetting and its implementation are hot topics causing controversy on campuses nationwide.

  • April 18 Amazon’s criminal background checks look back seven years and consider any convictions from that time. All finalists must complete criminal background searches, reference checks, and drug tests.
  • April 17

    From entry-level positions to roles involving “Top Secret” security clearances, military roles can involve a variety of different background investigations. We look at what different types of military background checks entail.

  • April 17 A new CNBC series is looking at true HR stories and their lessons. The most recent installment looked at the consequences of not running background checks.
  • April 12 Complicated by patchwork legislation and continuing federal prohibition, marijuana legalization poses several challenges for employers and would-be employees alike. Despite its legal status in a growing number of states, marijuana continues to negatively impact job-seekers.
  • April 12 Familiarizing yourself with the legality of background checks is essential. Continue reading about laws and regulations.
  • April 11

    Understanding the background check obligations in your industry and state.

  • April 10 A former employee of a senior assisted living community is facing charges for stealing from a resident. The alleged theft occurred after the employee gained access to the patient’s credit cards and checking account.
  • April 06 Background checks aren’t pass or fail. Employers consider various factors before making any hiring decision based on background check data.
  • April 06  Level 1 and Level 2 are terms used in Florida law to describe background check requirements for employers. We look at what a Level 2 background check entails.