CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT ARTICLE INDEX FOR 2019 FROM THE BACKGROUND BUZZ (29) ARTICLES
JANUARY I CALIFORNIA: Delta Air Lines settled a class action lawsuit that involved 44,000 applicants, resulting in $52.15 per class member, for failing to provide a stand-alone background check disclosure.
JANUARY I CALIFORNIA: A Wal-Mart lawsuit alleged the retail chain’s background checks failed to satisfy the FCRA’s notice requirements when it didn’t properly obtain authorization before conducting a background check.
JANUARY I MISSOURI: In a decision involving the federal court requirement to assess Article III standing before approving a settlement agreement, the plaintiff filed a putative class action for violations of the FCRA.
JANUARY I CALIFORNIA: A former Lowe’s employee accused the business of conducting background checks during the screening process without providing the appropriate disclosures.
JANUARY I FLORIDA: In Sanders v. Global Radar Acquisition, the plaintiffs filed a putative class action claiming the defendants failed to obtain certification prior to furnishing a consumer report.
JANUARY I CALIFORNIA: Allegations of violations of the FCRA recently were dismissed by the Northern District of California in Soman v. Alameda Health Sys.
JANUARY I CALIFORNIA: In Gilberg v. Cal. Cashing Stores, the Ninth Circuit confirmed the legal rights that job applicants have under state fair credit reporting laws when it comes to “extraneous text.”
FEBRUARY I CALIFORNIA: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the issue of the required disclosure and authorization and defines “clear and conspicuous” in Gilberg v. Cal. Cashing Stores.
APRIL I PENNSYLVANIA: A Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) class action settlement has been reached in the amount of $3.3M. The case involved incorrect and adverse public records.
APRIL I CALIFORNIA: Class-wide violations in a Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) case involved an employer’s “standalone” disclosure requirement and its denial of applicants based on information in their consumer reports.
APRIL I NEW YORK CITY: A new bill was passed by New York City Council that was part of an initiative to reduce the legal consequences of marijuana use.
APRIL I WASHINGTON/GEORGIA: Two class actions have been consolidated in Georgia involving inaccurate background reports regarding criminal histories provided by Accurate Background.
APRIL I PENNSYLVANIA: Pennsylvania’s Clean Slate Act can help minor offenders who have been free from conviction for 10 years to petition for a court order that prohibits disclosure of a criminal record.
APRIL I CALIFORNIA: In two separate Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) class action suits, the courts held that an employee must prove a violation was willful in order to recover statutory and punitive damages.
APRIL I COLORADO: A new bill in the state of Colorado requires those whose fingerprint reveals a record of arrest to submit to a name-based criminal history record check.
MAY I IOWA: The court in a Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) class action lawsuit ruled in favor of the business, holding that FCRA requirements are not applied in the same way for independent contractors.
MAY I FLORIDA: The Eleventh Circuit dismissed a putative class action suit holding that the business had not violated its duties when it reported that a customer’s account was past due even though a foreclosure lawsuit had been filed.
MAY I CALIFORNIA: The district court for the Northern District of California issued an order granting Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of a class settlement totaling $2.3 million.
JUNE I PENNSYLVANIA: A federal jury found that Bucks County willfully violated Pennsylvania’s Criminal History Records Information Act (CHRIA) and awarded up to $68 million in punitive damages.
JUNE I NATIONAL: 7-Eleven will establish a settlement fund of $1,972,500 to compensate about 60,000 job applicants who claimed that the company failed to provide a “standalone” notice of background checks.
JULY I NATIONAL: A suit has been filed against Macy’s that alleges the company has an “unnecessarily punitive criminal history screening policy” that “disproportionately disqualifies Black and Latin applicants and employees from job opportunities.”
JULY I NEW YORK CITY: Madison Square Garden recently faced a lawsuit that claimed its requirements for criminal disclosures had a disparate impact on minority applicants.
AUGUST I NEW YORK CITY: Old marijuana possession convictions for 350 people have been sealed by a Manhattan Supreme Court judge.
AUGUST I Pier 1 agreed to enter into a two-year conciliation agreement with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and an alleged victim to resolve a race discrimination charge.
AUGUST I GEORGIA: The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia found that consumer reports obtained for independent contractors do not trigger the protections applicable for consumer reports obtained for “employment purposes” under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
OCTOBER I CALIFORNIA: The lead plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against Walmart claim the store improperly solicited and obtained credit reports and background checks on job seekers and employees.
NOVEMBER I ILLINOIS: In a lawsuit brought by the EEOC, Dollar General has been accused of denying employment to African Americans at a higher rate than white applicants based on background checks.
NOVEMBER I SOUTH CAROLINA/TEXAS: General Information Services (GIS) and e-Background-checks.com have been ordered to correct its failure to take basic steps to assure the information reported about job applicants is accurate.
NOVEMBER I NATIONAL: A class action lawsuit was filed against Dollar General, alleging the retailer’s use of criminal background checks disparately impacted African-American applications.