Blog

 
     

Pizza Chain and Major Bank Sued in Class Actions for Technical FCRA Violations

By Michael Klazema on 12/16/2011

Plaintiff's law firms are suing large employers for technical violations of the disclosure requirements of the FCRA. At the beginning of the summer, we noted a class action where a plaintiff class asserted that the inclusion of the FCRA disclosure in the job application entitled the class to statutory damages of $670,000 to $6,700,000. Shortly after that, we noted a case where a company had settled a claim that the FCRA disclosure was invalid because it was not separate for $1,200,000.

We now see that a plaintiff's firm has filed class action cases against a major pizza chain and a major bank. In the pizza chain case, the plaintiff alleges that the disclosure is invalid because the disclosure form included a release of liability. In the bank case, the plaintiff alleges that the bank included its FCRA disclosure in a document covering all of the terms and conditions of employment and which contained a release of liability, instead of having the disclosure in a separate document, as the FCRA requires.

This type of claim appears to be the plaintiff's firms' favorite type of claim right now, because it is simple to prove and opens the possibility of statutory damages ($100 to $1,000 per defective disclosure), uncapped punitive damages, and attorney's fees. 

Employers should immediately review their disclosure and authorization documents and, if unsure about their compliance, put the disclosure in a separate document. Employers should ensure that their FCRA disclosures do not include a release of liability. Even if employers are certain that their forms comply with the FCRA, putting the disclosure in a separate document makes the employer a more difficult target for a class action. The evolving best practice is therefore to separate the disclosure from everything else.


Tag Cloud
Categories
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.