May 20, 2025
A job seeker has filed a lawsuit against an employment screening provider alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). According to the plaintiff, the provider included misdemeanor and felony charges unrelated to him in a background check report to a prospective employer. As a result, the employer rescinded the conditional offer.
The plaintiff revealed that the employment screening provider reported his twin brother’s criminal background to the company. The mistake happened because of their similar names and shared birthdate. As such, the plaintiff has sued the employment screening provider for delivering inaccurate and misleading information, failing to conduct a reasonable investigation into his disputes, and failing to comply with FCRA requirements.
The issue that led to this FCRA lawsuit began after the plaintiff applied for employment with a manufacturing company that provides cable and connector solutions. This application took place on January 21, 2025. The plaintiff received a conditional offer of employment as an order puller. Contingent on a background check, he would have started working on February 3, 2025.
With authorization from the plaintiff, the employer requested a background check that included criminal record history. On January 31, 2025, the employer emailed the plaintiff informing their decision to rescind the job offer. The employer explained that it made this decision based on information found in the background report.
Upon reviewing a copy of this report, the plaintiff discovered that it contained Class A Misdemeanor and Felony charges. However, the plaintiff revealed that the charges did not belong to them. Instead, they belonged to his twin brother, who bears a similar name and shares their date of birth.
Despite the company later receiving a corrected background check, it did not reinstate the plaintiff’s offer of employment. As such, the lawsuit claimed that the misinformation in the report impacted his job opportunity. The plaintiff also claimed the employment screening provider could have prevented the company from receiving misinformation.
However, the provider failed to maintain reasonable procedures to verify the accuracy of the information it reports in compliance with the FCRA. The FCRA requires consumer reporting agencies to uphold procedures that ensure maximum possible accuracy when preparing, maintaining, and disseminating information in consumer reports. According to the FCRA, companies that provide background checks for employment must also comply with these standards.
As a result, the plaintiff sued the employment screening company for violating the FCRA. He claimed the provider failed to meet FCRA requirements, which led to loss of opportunities and significant emotional distress. Due to this, the plaintiff is seeking actual, statutory, and punitive damages against the defendant.