Tag: extraneous provisions

California Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of Lawsuit Over “Extraneous Provisions” in Background Check Consent Form December 13, 2022 California’s Court of Appeals for the Fifth Appellate District has ruled on another case concerning the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). This case involves a former employee against an operator of gas stations and convenience stores within California. This ruling clarifies how California’s state courts interpret standing under the FCRA on a state level. In this case, the plaintiff was a future employee of the defendant and alleged that the employer required him to sign a consent form as a condition of employment. Furthermore, this form purportedly authorized the employer to obtain a consumer report verifying the plaintiff’s background and experience. According to the plaintiff’s complaint, this consent form failed to comply with the FCRA. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the consent form included “extraneous information” in violation of subdivision (b)(2)(A)(i) of section 1681b. This section requires employers to provide a clear and conspicuous disclosure consisting solely of the disclosure before attempting to or obtaining a consumer report. Furthermore, the plaintiff claimed the employer did not have written authorization to acquire the consumer report. Finally, the plaintiff admitted confusion about his rights under the FCRA. This confusion invalidated the approval for the employer to obtain the consumer report, resulting in the second violation. The plaintiff alleged that all job applicants for positions with the defendant required employees to sign the same non-compliant consent form. As a result, this form allowed the defendant to obtain consumer reports for at least five years before the plaintiff filed the complaint. As such, the plaintiff filed for himself and a class of similarly situated consumers. Before filing these claims in a state court, the plaintiff brought the same claims in federal court. However, the federal district court dismissed these claims with prejudice, finding that the plaintiff lacked Article III standing. The plaintiff subsequently filed a complaint in a California state court. In answer, the employer objected to each cause of action, arguing that the plaintiff: “Lacked legal capacity to sue; Was not a real party in interest; and Lacked standing to sue.” The basis behind each objection involved the contention that the plaintiff did not suffer concrete harm. Accordingly, the court sustained the defendant’s demurrer and dismissed the claims in favor of the employer. Upon appeal, the plaintiff argued that injury is not a required element to pursue his FCRA claim in California courts. Instead, the plaintiff argued that he had suffered “informational injuries” that were sufficient to give him standing to continue the action. However, the appeals court found that “o have standing to pursue his claims, Limon must allege a concrete injury.” In addition, the court rejected the plaintiff’s informational injury claims. They found that such an injury creates no adverse effect sufficient to confer standing to sue under the FCRA. As a result, the court found that the plaintiff failed to establish an injury sufficient to establish standing under the FCRA, affirming the district court’s ruling. Though the employer successfully defended themselves in this case, many employers may not fare so well. Therefore, it is crucial for organizations to regularly review their forms and procedures and work with a trusted background check provider to help ensure accuracy and compliance with state and federal requirements. Pre-employ makes background checks easy and reliable. Speak with a compliance expert today. Source

Tag: extraneous provisions

Our Process

Our Platform

Screenings

For Your Industry

For Your Role

Webinar

Resources Library

Logins

E-Book

Services

Industry

Resources

Our Company