Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins. This case should answer a very important question for employers: Does a plaintiff have standing to bring a lawsuit for a technical violation of the Fair Credit Report Act if the individual suffered no resulting concrete harm? The implications of this case are huge.
Over the past few years, the number of FCRA class-action lawsuit has increased exponentially. It’s easy to see why. The FCRA is a highly technical statute. It does not regulate how employers use background checks on applicants or employees, but instead regulates the hoops through which an employer must jump to use legally obtain these background checks. These hoops are:
If an employer slips on any step, it has violated the statute. Yet, missing one of these technical steps usually does not make an applicant any more hireable. Just because an employer buries the notice and consent in an employment application (illegal / violates the FCRA) does not mean that an applicant with a felonious criminal history should be hired.
This is where Spokeo enters the picture. The case will decide whether a plaintiff can suffer a violation of a statutory right without corresponding actual damages. If SCOTUS answers “yes”, it will mean that job applicants and employees will have a green light to file lawsuits even if they can’t show that the violation of the law cost them money. Cynically, a “yes” would give litigants carte blanche to turn innocuous and harmless conduct into expensive class action lawsuits.
Keep an eye out for the decision in this case in 2016. It will help define the degree of concern employers will need to show towards FCRA class actions moving forward.
For now, you can read the oral argument transcript [pdf] to see how divided across ideological issues the justices appear to be over this issue.
Visit the Ohio Employer's Law Blog for more practical employment law information.
Presented by Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 831-0042 or email@example.com.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions, please connect with us through our corporate site.