Duane Morris Class Action Review - 2023 - Report - Page 214
B.
The FCRA “Standalone” Document Requirement
Under the FCRA, employee applicant disclosures must be contained in a document that
“consists solely of the disclosure[s].” 15 U.S.C. § 1681(b)(b)(2(A)(i). As more states and
municipalities pass employee background check laws that impose additional
background check requirements beyond the requirements of the FCRA, employers must
be cautious not to place FCRA and state or municipality mandate background check
disclosures in the same document.
Courts have repeatedly held that such a practice violates the “standalone” document
requirement provide in section 1681(b)(b)(2(A)(i) of the FCRA. See e.g. Walker, et al. v.
Fred Meyer, Inc., 953 F.3d 1082, 1088 (9th Cir. 2020). As the following cases
demonstrate, the plaintiffs’ bar has sued many employers that violate this simple
requirement.
In Singletary, et al. v. G6 Hospitality LLC, Case No. 20-CV-270 (S.D. Cal. June 17,
2022), the court approved a $1.45 million settlement with individual class member
payments of $63.29, resolving claims that the defendant violated the FCRA by including
extraneous information in the Act’s required disclosures. The defendant in this case, G6
Hospitality LLC, owns, operates, and franchises 1,400 economy lodging locations under
the Motel 6 and Studio 6 brands in the U.S. and Canada. The plaintiffs alleged that in an
application to work, G6 included required California state disclosures, in addition to
required FCCRA disclosures on it background check and disclosure authorization form.
The inclusion of such state information constitutes “extraneous information” in an
FFCRA disclosure in violation of the Act. The court approved a final settlement of
$1,397,570 for a class of 14,082 individuals.
In Johnson, et al. v. G4s Secure Solutions (USA) Inc., Case No. 21-CA-5587 (Fla. Cir.
Ct. Sept. 28, 2022), the court approved a $1.78 million settlement with individual class
member payments of $25, resolving claims that the defendant violated the FCRA by
including extraneous information in the Act’s required disclosures. The plaintiffs alleged
that Defendant G4s, a security services company based in the United Kingdom,
included California state background check disclosures, in addition to the required
FCCRA disclosures, on its application background check form. The court approved a
final settlement of $1,758,625 for a class of applicants consisting of approximately
70,345 individuals.
The Singletary and Johnson show that an employer’s best efforts to comply with both
state background check laws and the FCRA can still miss the mark when the employer
includes required FCRA and state disclosures within the same document. Litigation over
the FCRA “standalone” document requirement will likely increase going forward, as
more states and even municipalities impose additional background check disclosure
requirements. Employers in these jurisdictions must resist urge to consolidate these
disclosures into one document, lest they find themselves facing a FCRA class action.
213
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2023
