August 13, 2024
According to a Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) lawsuit, an individual applied for work with Home Shopping Network (HSN), which denied his application. The business revealed that it received a criminal background report containing information about the applicant’s felony charge for distributing a Schedule II drug. Such drugs are categorized as significantly dangerous and include substances like cocaine or methamphetamine.
However, the applicant claimed he received a charge for selling marijuana, which is not a Schedule II drug. This misinformation led to his rejection, and he believes an accurate representation of his background would have changed the results of his application. As such, he filed a lawsuit against the background-checking company that provided inaccurate information to the HSN. He further alleged that this mistake had happened on two separate occasions despite his contesting the report’s findings.
This lawsuit took place in the Eastern District of New York. According to the case, the applicant applied for work with the HSN. With approval for a background check, the HSN then received inaccurate information from its screening provider. The screening provider claimed that he manufactured a Schedule II drug and faced an arrest over it. Schedule II drugs have significant potential for abuse. Examples in this category include meth, fentanyl, and cocaine.
However, the applicant argued about the inaccuracy of this report. He revealed that the screening provider should have reported a charge for a Schedule VI drug. Substances of this category are notably less dangerous. As such, the record should have shown a charge for “possession of marijuana for sale or delivery.”
He immediately requested a correction and provided court documents to support his claim. However, the HSN still rejected his application. After the first rejection, the applicant applied for another position with the network. The lawsuit revealed that the company received a second erroneous report with the same charge and denied him the position. As such, the applicant believes this error negatively impacted his opportunities twice.
The applicant claimed that the background screening company violated the FCRA through this lawsuit. He argued that the screening company failed to verify the accuracy of the provided reports sufficiently. As a result, the repeated FCRA violation led to emotional distress and actual damages from the lost job opportunities. He stressed how misrepresenting the severity of his drug-related charge and failing to correct the information violated the FCRA. Currently, the case remains unresolved.