June

Vitas Healthcare Corp. job applicant Jazzina Williams alleges she was provided a facially invalid authorization form when she applied for employment.

Jazzina Williams filed a complaint on behalf of individually and on behalf of those similarly situated on March 7 in the San Francisco County Superior Court against Vitas Healthcare Corp. of California and Does 1-10 alleging violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff signed a background investigation authorization and release forms given to her by the defendants in April 2016 to obtain a consumer report and/or an investigative consumer report through Sterling Infosystems.  She alleges this form is unlawful because it includes a clause requiring applicants to "release from liability all persons, companies and governmental or other agencies disclosing such information."  The plaintiffs hold Vitas Healthcare Corp. of California and Does 1-10 responsible because the defendants allegedly failed to provide a clear and conspicuous disclosure and procured investigative consumer reports by using invalid authorization forms.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek judgment against defendant, certify class action, appoint plaintiff and counsel as class representative/counsel, statutory and punitive damages, costs of suit and expenses, interest and other relief as the court deems just. She is represented by Kevin F. Woodall of Woodall Law Offices in San Francisco.

The District Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently confirmed that even if an employer fails to follow the proper procedure, an applicant may not have standing to bring an adverse action claim if the background check as issue is accurate.

In Ratliff v. A&R Logistics, Inc., plaintiff Jerome Ratliff, Jr., claimed A&R Logistics, Inc. declined to hire him based on his background check without following a proper adverse action process. A&R moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that Ratliff had not suffered any injury-in-fact. Because Ratliff failed to allege that the background check on him contained any inaccuracies, he could not show any "informational injury".

The Ninth Circuit has ruled that the plaintiff in Bassett v. ABM Parking Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:16-CV-00947 (9th Cir. 1018) failed to allege a concrete injury-in-fact sufficient for Article III standing in a suit alleging a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

The panel applied Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), in which the Supreme Court emphasized Article II standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation. The panel also discussed the legislative history of the FCRA requirement to redact credit card expiration dates and concluded that the congressional judgment weighted against the plaintiff because Congress' findings showed that a disclosed expiration date by itself posted minimal risk. And finally, the panel found the plaintiff's alternative statutory theories of injury to be unpersuasive.

Finally, the panel found the plaintiff’s alternative statutory theories of injury to be unpersuasive because (1) no purported substantive right of privacy was invaded when the plaintiff’s private information was not disclosed to anyone but himself and (2) the plaintiff did not allege any actual or material risk of harm as a result of the alleged procedural violation.  Thus, the Ninth Circuit panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the case due to lack of standing.