FCRA INDIVIDUAL LAWSUIT ARTICLE INDEX FOR 2020 FROM THE BACKGROUND BUZZ (9)
January | Michigan/California: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision that a plaintiff who alleged violations of the FDCPA failed to allege a concrete injury in fact sufficient to confer Article III standing.
April | Alaska: The Ninth Circuit affirmed that FCRA notices should be limited to basic information about the search and its purposes in Walker v. Fred Meyer, Inc.
April | Ohio: A recent Sixth Circuit decision addressed whether FCRA imposes a technical-accuracy standard or an “inaccurate or misleading standard” in Twumasi-Ankrah v. Checkr, Inc.
August | District of Columbia: Employers should ensure that their authorizations and disclosures are clear and contain details on investigations that could take place, and they should provide employees with consumer report findings before adverse action takes place.
September | Florida: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that obtaining a consumer report to verify identity is a “permissible” purpose under the FCRA.
September | Florida: The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that businesses have a “legitimate business need” to pull a credit report as part of a consumer-initiated request.
October | New York: The Second Court of Appeals for the Western District of New York affirmed the dismissal by a district court’s judgment that claimed a company’s refusal to hire ex-offenders had a discriminatory impact on Black applicants.
November | Arkansas: A decision was upheld by the Arkansas Supreme Court, requiring a district court clerk to release court records under the state’s Freedom of Information law.
December | Pennsylvania: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit held that a consumer report was not misleading and complied with the federal FCRA’s “maximum possible accuracy” standard.