FCRA CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT ARTICLE INDEX FOR 2020 FROM THE BACKGROUND BUZZ (23)
January | New York: In November, the CFPB filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Sterling Infosystems, Inc., for violations of the FCRA.
February | Florida: The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a $250,000 compensatory damages award and reduced a $3.3 million award to $1 million.
March | California: The 9th Circuit held in Ramirez v. TransUnion LLC that individual class members must satisfy Article III’s standing requirements in order to recover individual monetary damages.
March | National: The Ninth Circuit issued its third opinion on the question of when an employer’s background check disclosure satisfies the “standalone” disclosure requirement in the FCRA.
March | National: With the courts taking different approaches when looking at whether a statute itself creates a protected interest that relieves the need to show any additional harm or injury, defendants find it difficult to predict whether a lawsuit may survive.
April | California: It was determined that two Shamrock Foods employees failed to show they were confused by background check information and would not have signed off had it contained a sufficiently clear disclosure.
April | Alaska: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in March that both affirmed and reversed parts of a lower district court’s findings to dismiss a class action claim.
May | California: The Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgement in favor of the defendant-employer in Luna v. Hansen and Adkins Auto Transport, Inc.
May | California: A Ninth Circuit decision in Luna v. Hansen & Adkins Auto Transport, Inc., limited a claimant’s attempt to stretch the FCRA beyond its plain language.
May | Alaska & California: In two separate cases, the Ninth Circuit issued mostly pro-employer federal FCRA background check decisions.
June | California: The Ninth Circuit held that the FCRA disclosure need not be provided at a point in time that is “distinct” from the time when other employment-related are provided to an applicant.
June | California: The Ninth Circuit rejected a former employee’s argument that his employer violated the FCRA when it provided the consumer report disclosure with other application materials.
June | Georgia: LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc., has been sued in a proposed class action for violations of the FCRA.
July | Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a county’s probation agency could not prohibit individuals under its supervision from using medical marijuana consistent with the state’s Medical Marijuana Act.
July | Georgia: Starbucks was accused in separate class action complaints of allegedly systemically violating the FCRA by failing to give job applicants timely notice about the use of consumer credit reports.
July | National: With more than 4,937 FCRA cases filed in 2019, there is a growing body of case law that offers significant guidance for best practices.
August | New York: The parties in a case of FCRA violations against Madison Square Garden have agreed to settle the lawsuit for $1.3 million.
September | Pennsylvania: The Eastern District of Pennsylvania confirmed that a plaintiff lacks Article III standing to state a claim for violation of the FCRA premised solely on the failure to receive a copy of the background report and the procedurally-required summary of rights.
September | Pennsylvania: TransUnion was sued in a class action lawsuit for labeling the plaintiff as a terrorist on his credit report based on his last name.
September | New York: Macy’s Inc. has agreed to settle a lawsuit that accused the store of using an unnecessarily punitive criminal history screening policy that discriminated against minorities.
November | California: Class action litigation regarding the FCRA has been on the rise in California since a 2017 Ninth Circuit ruling that applied a hypertechnical approach to disclosure requirements.
November | California: Checkpeople.com has been ordered to pay $775,000 in penalties, fees and restitution for a civil law enforcement case that found they renewed subscriptions without consent.
December | California: The Supreme Court granted cert in a case to consider “whether either Article III or Rule 23 permits a damages class action where the vast majority of the class suffered no actual injury …”