Employers and Background Check Firms are still targets of FCRA Lawsuits

There is a continuation of class action lawsuits going against employers and background check firms that claim alleged violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) in 2020. This is despite the ruling against Spokeo v. Robins by the Supreme Court that led to some cases being dismissed.

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins was a United States Supreme Court case decided in May 2016, in which the Court vacated and remanded a ruling by United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the basis that the Ninth Circuit had not properly determined whether the plaintiff has suffered an "injury-in-fact" when analyzing whether he had standing to bring his case in federal court. 

A national policy resource center compiled an examination of 146 successful FCRA class action lawsuits. They found that employers have paid out approximately $174 million over the past decade to settle claims they violated according to the FCRA. According to background check firms that provide background checks about job applicants to employers, reports that employers have paid out another $152 million when sued directly under the FCRA . Class action lawsuits that claim violations of the FCRA, including small technical violations of statute are costing employers big time. 

In just 2018 and 2019, The employers such as: 7-Eleven paid $1.9 million, Delta Air Lines paid $2.3 million, Omincare paid $1.3 million, a subsidiary of PepsiCo paid $1.2 million and Frito-Lay Inc. paid 2.4 million to settle the class action lawsuits over alleged violations of the FCRA. 

Consumer Reporting Agencies (CRAs) such as TransUnion, Equifax, and Experian - who are background check providers - also had to pay out money due to these FCRA lawsuits. A government agency that enforces the FCRA - the Consumer Financial Bureau (CFPB) - required a CRA to pay $8.5 million to resolve an FCRA lawsuit, while a federal judge in Florida approved a $3.6 million settlement in a FCRA class action lawsuit that was filed against another CRA. 

The Supreme Court ruling in May 2016, Spokeo v. Robins, caused some FCRA class action lawsuits to be dismissed or decertified. One example includes a man who filed a lawsuit when he found that a “people search website” obtained inaccurate information about him. Found consumers must prove that there is “an injury in fact” in lawsuits for alleged “bare” violations of federal statures to establish standing under Article III of the United States Constitution. 

In the Spokeo case, the Supreme Courts decision did not allow employers to relax their obligations or ignore the technicalities of the FCRA. Employers must always ensure that they are compliant with the obligations stated by the FCRA and must work with background check providers that understand the FCRA inside and out. 

Employers and CRA’s are encouraged to use Employment Screening Resources (ESR) that offer two complimentary white papers (a government or other authoritative report giving information or proposals on an issue) that include: “Common Ways Prospective or Current Employees Sue Employers Under the FCRA” and “Common Ways Consumer Reporting Agencies are Sued Under the FCRA” These closely examine the many causes that can lead to lawsuits and shows employers and CRA’s that they work with can avoid a costly litigation. 

Class Action Suit Against Experian & CSC

Indiana Consumer Files Class Action Suit Against Experian and CSC | Challenging the Accuracy of Bankruptcy Credit Reporting 

Today, Cento Law, along with Eric Pavlack, filed a class action lawsuit against two consumer reporting agencies, Experian Information Services, Inc. and CSC Credit Services alleging numerous violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. In the suit, Plaintiff alleges the consumer reporting agencies inaccurately reported her bankruptcy on her credit report as dismissed when it was in fact withdrawn and failed to report that her bankruptcy was withdrawn before any bankruptcy plan was approved.  Earlier this year, Plaintiff filed a similar lawsuit against Trans Union, LLC.

If you have any questions regarding this lawsuit, then please feel free to contact us.

May a consumer claim defamation against a furnisher of inaccurate credit information?

The following is a summary of a recent federal court ruling addressing this question:

In Longman v. Wachovia Bank, the Connecticut District Court held that the consumer's state law defamation claim was preempted by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (the "FCRA").  The consumer had alleged Wachovia defamed him by falsely reporting information to the consumer reporting agencies (the "CRAs") related to a three-year balloon lot note which he had obtained to finance a land purchase from Wachovia.  The Court found, among other things, that Section 1681t(B)(1)(F) of the FCRA expressly preempts the application of state law regarding any matters regulated by Section 1681s-2.  The Court reasoned that because the consumer alleged Wachovia reported this false information to the agencies, he was necessarily asserting a violation of Section 1681s-2, the Section of the FCRA which in part governs the reporting of information to the CRAs.

Therefore, according to this Connecticut District Court a consumer may not claim state law defamation against a furnisher of inaccurate credit information since that claim would be preempted by the FCRA.

HOWEVER, all is not lost. To sue a furnisher for reporting inaccurate information on your credit report, you simply need to dispute that information through the credit reporting agencies.  And then, if the inaccurate information is not corrected, you may file suit under the FCRA. 

Mixed Credit Files - The Case of Angela Williams

Angela Williams filed a lawsuit against Equifax alleging that her Equifax credit report included more than two dozen negative accounts which did not belong on her credit report. The negative accounts actually belonged to another consumer named Angelina Williams. In addition to sharing almost identical names, Angela and Angelina also shared another important similarity - their social security numbers were almost identical except that the last two digits were reversed. Angela sent numerous disputes to Equifax trying to correct its reporting over a period of more than a decade. From time to time, Equifax would remove some of the inaccurate accounts from her credit file but those accounts would later appear in other versions of her credit report. Often times, when Angela would request a copy of her credit report, Equifax would return only incomplete credit reports since Equifax's database had created many different credit files for Angela; sometimes those files were put together into one report and sometimes they were not. As a result of this inaccurate reporting, Angela alleged she was repeatedly denied credit. In November 2007, Angela's case made its way to a Florida jury who entered a verdict in her favor and against Equifax for $219,000 in actual damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages.