February 27, 2025
Recently, a class action lawsuit aimed at an employer overseeing several fashion brands failed to hold up in court. This lawsuit alleged that the employer’s background check program violated federal law.
According to the court, the claims did not satisfy the requirement for certifying a class action under Rule 23. The issue for this case began when the plaintiff transferred from a California-based store to one in Arizona owned by the same employer. Soon after this transfer, the employer requested another background check on the plaintiff. However, the report contained criminal records, including a conviction for theft.
According to the employer’s hiring criteria, the background screening provider scored the report with “Fail.” This scoring indicated the plaintiff did not qualify for employment with the fashion brand company. Allegedly, the plaintiff arrived for work after the screening finished before learning she became ineligible to work with the company. She received a copy of the report and a statement of her rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) the following day. In this report, she learned that her employer considered adverse action.
However, the plaintiff claimed that the adverse action had happened the day before she received this information. This sequence of events prevented her from working or getting paid. As such, the plaintiff disputed the criminal record information in the report. She argued that the criminal record portrayed inaccuracies because they “reflect[ed] a different gender and date of birth for many of the criminal records in question.” As a result, the company terminated her due to misinformation in the report.
Following her termination, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit to represent individuals who suffered similar adverse actions. Such individuals include those subjected to a background check from the same provider and scored “Ineligible for Hire” or “Fail” beginning two years before the action. This lawsuit addressed several grievances, particularly the issue of applicants receiving a copy of their consumer reports and rights under the FCRA late. Examples include how the employer took adverse action by preventing individuals from working, appearing in stores, and receiving earnings before sending the employees the report and their rights.
However, the court found that this case failed to meet the standards for certification. They claimed it did not meet Rule 23 standards, specifically, the typicality requirement. Besides the plaintiff, no other class member had started working before the holding period during a background check. The case also failed to meet the requirement for predominance. The court pointed out that the claims heavily relied on the plaintiff’s individual experiences and did not show systematic deficiencies.
Disclaimer:
Information provided here is for educational and informational purposes only and should not constitute as legal advice. We recommend you contact your own legal counsel for any questions regarding your specific practices and compliance with applicable laws.