In another example of the continuing increase in background screening-related class actions, a national restaurant chain was on the receiving end of a class action lawsuit. In the nationwide class action, filed in the Central District of California, the plaintiff claims the restaurant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by failing to provide an
Avoid Becoming the Next Target of a Class Action Taking Aim at Employers’ Background Screening Forms
Last week, a Florida district court approved a class action settlement between Whole Foods Market Group Inc. and an employee class related to Whole Foods’ inclusion of a waiver and liability release in its Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) disclosure form. This settlement, as well as other recent lawsuits and decisions, are reminders to employers
Spokeo Continues to Garner Attention; Argument Set for November 2
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins has continued to garner attention, both in terms of motions to stay the litigation in the pending case and with respect to amicus briefing by parties interested in the issues raised in this important case. On September 9, the Supreme Court set arguments for the case for November 2. As of
Whole Foods Becomes Most Recent Retailer to Settle FCRA Background Check Lawsuit
On September 15, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida preliminarily approved a Fair Credit Reporting Act background check class action settlement in Speer v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc. We previously wrote about this lawsuit on the Consumer Financial Services Law Monitor blog here. The settlement adds Whole Foods
FTC Closes Investigation Against Health Care Provider, Offers Further Statements Regarding Background Screening Policies
The Federal Trade Commission has closed an investigation into potential violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act by a California-based health care company. However, despite its decision to not recommend enforcement action, the Commission rejected the notion that the company’s use of background screening reports — or the use of reports to investigate job applicants
NYC Commission on Human Rights Issues Enforcement Guidance on SCDEA
Earlier this month, the New York City Commission on Human Rights provided enforcement guidance on the Stop Credit Discrimination in Employment Act (SCDEA). The SCDEA took effect on September 3, 2015, and restricts employers from requesting or using applicants’ and employees’ credit history when making employment decisions. The Commission referred to SCDEA as
FCC Continues to Expand Its TCPA Reach with E-Faxes
On August 28, the Federal Communications Commission issued a declaratory ruling holding that electronic faxes or “e-faxes” are covered by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Junk Fax Protection Act. E-faxes are communications that originate as a fax, but are converted to electronic files during transmission and received as attachments to emails. This ruling
California Federal Court Deals with Statute of Limitations for FCRA Claims in Background Screening Claims
In June, a former employee filed a class action complaint against Kohl’s Department Stores alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and California’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA) and Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRAA). Kohl’s filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the claims were time-barred under the FCRA’s two-year
California Appeals Court Revives California’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act
The California Appeals Court overturned a Los Angeles Superior Court decision holding that California’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA) was unconstitutionally vague because of its overlap with California’s Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRAA). Connor v. First Student, Inc., 2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 699 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. Aug. 14, 2015).
In the
Spokeo-Based Stays Gaining Steam in Consumer Litigation
On April 27, 2015, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Spokeo Inc. v. Robins to address the issue of whether Congress may confer Article III standing on a plaintiff who suffers no concrete harm by simply authorizing a private right of action based on the violation of a federal statute alone. Although the