A job applicant who suffered no harm, lost no job, and had not one inaccurate line in the background report can still sue the employer who ran the background check, to pursue statutory damages. The damages range from $100 to $1,000, but when multiplied by the number of employees joined in a class action, that single page form suddenly becomes a very expensive sheet in the employee’s file to make a mistake on. Counting by the zeros it might add to the judgment value, it is the literal O-sheet piece of paper, not even funny. Such is the practical lesson of Askins v. CRST Expedited, Inc., No. A172921, June 4, 2026, where the First District held that an employer’s failure to follow the federal "FCRA" (the Fair Credit Reporting Act) rules for the disclosure form is itself the injury, and that no separate harm is needed to sue over it in a California court.
The defense in these cases used to rely on the injury in fact: if nothing bad actually happened to the applicant, she had no standing to complain about the paperwork. This approach was supported by the holding in Limon v. Circle K Stores, Inc. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 671, that said an employee-plaintiff must show a concrete injury to sue under the FCRA. CRST raised Limon to decertify a class of job applicants, and the trial court agreed. Now the court in Askins reversed and parted ways with Limon.
The reasoning in Askins is that the FCRA's Section 1681n lets a consumer recover, for a willful violation, either “actual damages sustained … as a result of the failure” or statutory damages “of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000.” Since under the statutory interpretation rules it is presumed that Congress meant what it said in the statute’s language, and since the second option drops the language about the actual damages, then the statutory damages are meant to be available where actual harm doesn’t need to be shown. So, all it would take for standing in a California court is a formal (or should I say, format?) violation under the FCRA. It also harmonizes with California’s own background-check statute, just recently similarly interpreted not to require actual damages, in Parsonage v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 399. Note that California’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, Civil Code section 1786.16 asks for more than what the FCRA requires in its own stand-alone-disclosure rule, for example, the nature and scope of the investigation, the reporting agency’s name and address, and a pointer to the privacy practices. (Civ. Code, § 1786.16, subd. (a)(2)(B).)
More about that format, since the statutory violation in these cases would be invariably about the form. The governing provision is 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2)(A). Before an employer may procure a consumer report, it must make “a clear and conspicuous disclosure … in writing … in a document that consists solely of the disclosure” that a report may be obtained for employment purposes, and it must secure the applicant’s written authorization. The statute lets that authorization sit on the same document. So the page should satisfy these three, and only these three, elements: a plain statement that a background report may be pulled, a line for the applicant’s signed authorization, and nothing that obscures either. Naturally it has to come before the report is ordered. Section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i) says “… a clear and conspicuous disclosure has been made in writing to the consumer at any time before the report is procured or caused to be procured …” so don’t hope to argue some retroactive ratification.
Back to the requirements, the focus has been on the word “solely” that the federal courts have read strictly. A liability waiver does not belong on the page. For example, tucking a release of claims into the disclosure form is a willful violation, because the statute calls for a stand-alone document and a release is not a disclosure. (Syed v. M-I, LLC (2017) 853 F.3d 492.) Piling up all the right words mixed with everything else, including the state-law notices, also won’t cut it. In Gilberg v. California Check Cashing Stores, LLC (2019) 913 F.3d 1169 the court voided a form that wrapped the federal disclosure in a thicket of other notices, and added that a resulting form is more confusing than “clear and conspicuous,” even when all the needed language is included. However, it is permissible to have a brief, plain explanation of what a consumer report is and how it will be obtained. (Walker v. Fred Meyer, Inc. (2020) 953 F.3d 1082.)
It is also worth noting that the Askins case comes from hiring that happened at a trucking company, meaning a “revolving-door” business with a high turnover, meaning a company with a higher chance to have its hiring forms challenged. This is of course not the only disclosure that gets attacked in that packet. Recall, for example, the rules on meal and rest periods and their waivers (e.g., 1, 2), or an agreement to arbitrate (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). Not all of it is bad news, of course. The compliance and legal departments can be assured that they will not be replaced anytime soon, and hey, here’s another not-so-niche chunk of work for the plaintiff side!
No comments:
Post a Comment