Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the court addressed a motion for partial summary judgment concerning the classification and use of criminal background reports furnished by CoreLogic National Background Data, LLC (NBD) under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The plaintiffs, who were denied employment based on inaccurate criminal history reports, alleged that NBD failed to comply with the FCRA's requirements for consumer reporting agencies. NBD argued that their business model did not fall under the FCRA's provisions, claiming the data provided were not consumer reports and not used for employment purposes. However, the court rejected NBD's arguments, finding that the reports related to specific consumers and were intended for employment purposes, thus falling under the FCRA's scope. Additionally, the court found that NBD did not maintain 'strict procedures' to ensure the completeness and currency of the reports, as required by Section 1681k(a) of the FCRA. Consequently, the court denied NBD's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the issues of whether the reports were consumer reports and if NBD complied with the FCRA's procedural requirements warranted further examination by a jury. This decision upheld the plaintiffs' claims and allowed the case to proceed to trial.
Legal Issues Addressed
Adverse Effect and Public Records under the Fair Credit Reporting Actsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Reports containing criminal records are likely to adversely affect employment opportunities, hence fall within the scope of FCRA regulations.
Reasoning: Reports containing public records likely to negatively impact employment opportunities fall within the scope of FCRA regulations.
Definition of Consumer Report under the Fair Credit Reporting Actsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court concluded that search results, even if they pertain to multiple individuals, can relate to a specific consumer under the FCRA as they are initiated based on a specific query.
Reasoning: The conclusion is that the search results do indeed relate to a particular consumer, as they are initiated based on a specific query, thereby satisfying the requirements of the FCRA.
Employment Purposes under the Fair Credit Reporting Actsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: NBD's reports are considered for employment purposes because they are intended for permissible purposes like employment decisions as defined by the FCRA.
Reasoning: NBD's contracts, which state that the data provided to clients, including potential employers, is intended for permissible purposes like employment decisions as defined by the FCRA.
Permissible Purpose for Consumer Reportssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The reports were furnished for employment purposes, satisfying the permissible purpose requirement under the FCRA, as NBD had reason to believe and obtained appropriate certifications from customers.
Reasoning: A CRA must demonstrate that a report was 'furnished' for a permissible purpose, such as employment, by showing it had 'reason to believe' the report would be used for that purpose and obtained appropriate certifications from customers.
Strict Procedures Requirement under Section 1681k(a) of the FCRAsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that NBD’s procedures, which included data transcription without manual review, did not meet the 'strict procedures' requirement to ensure the completeness and currency of reports.
Reasoning: Plaintiffs counter that such procedures are insufficient because they involve mere transcription of data without manual review, which they argue is necessary to comply with FCRA's 'strict procedures' requirement.