The plaintiff in Mattiaccio v. DHA Grp., Inc., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129464 (D.D.C. July 21, 2020) was terminated by the defendants based on alleged misconduct. The plaintiff alleged background checks run by the employer were retaliation for a complaint he filed against them, bringing two Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) claims to the suit. In the first, it was alleged that the defendants lacked “proper authorization” to perform the background checks because the authorizations for the checks were not clearly formatted. The second was construed by the court as an allegation that the plaintiff did not authorize a post-employment background check and was not given a summary of rights or a chance to review his consumer report before he was terminated based on the post-employment background check. The plaintiff was given standing after the court determined that a defendant’s unauthorized obtaining of a consumer report was an injury in fact. The case will go to trial. Employers should ensure that authorizations and disclosures are clear, contain the appropriate scope for all investigations and that employees are provided with the information obtained from consumer reports before taking adverse action based on that information.


Read more

Posted Under: Legal Issues

Post By Ken Shafton (2,372 Posts)