September 24, 2024
The Sixth Court of Appeals recently ruled in favor of a major retail corporation in a Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) lawsuit. According to the decision, the job applicant who filed the suit claimed the corporation did not fully inform him about some adverse information in his background check.
In the appeals court, the judge referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in the TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez case. In the referenced case, the job applicant had not claimed that he suffered any injury beyond a statutory violation of the FCRA. As such, he held no entitlement to relief under the Act. This decision affirmed the federal district court’s, which granted the defendant summary judgment due to the plaintiff’s lack of standing.
In this case, the plaintiff explained that they applied for a job at the major retail corporation and received a conditional offer of employment. This offer continged on the applicant passing a background check, which they allowed the company to run. However, the background check revealed a misdemeanor conviction the applicant had not disclosed.
The retail corporation received a background report containing information on a misdemeanor that the applicant did not mention beforehand. This discovery disqualified the plaintiff and informed him of his status as “not competitive for the job.” However, the retail corporation did not explain why the plaintiff no longer qualified.
The job applicant filed a lawsuit against the retail corporation, claiming it violated the FCRA. He argued that the corporation failed to provide job applicants with a copy of their full consumer report before taking adverse actions. The court that heard this case denied his claims, which led to the plaintiff appealing the decision. However, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled against his claim. The court revealed that the plaintiff had failed to establish an informational injury based on the Ramirez case.
The court also clarified that the plaintiff having complete information would not have changed the decision. It stressed that the applicant’s failure to disclose his misdemeanor conviction led to the rejected application; the missing information would not influence the outcome. In addition, the plaintiff failed to provide adequate evidence of adverse effects to prevent a summary judgment based on his claim of standing due to an informational injury. As such, the summary judgment ruled by the appeals court upheld the initial court’s summary judgment.