Catherine Taylor v. Tenant Tracker, Inc.

Citations: 710 F.3d 824; 2013 WL 1235314Docket: 11-3466

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; March 28, 2013; Federal Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Catherine L. Taylor sued Tenant Tracker, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) due to the company's failure to implement reasonable procedures for ensuring the accuracy of its credit reporting. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Tenant Tracker, which was subsequently affirmed by the Eighth Circuit. 

The case arose after the Taylors applied for federal housing assistance in September 2008 and completed a background check with Wanda Taylor from the Benton Public Housing Authority in April 2010. The Housing Authority, which had used Tenant Tracker's reporting service since 2003, conducted a criminal background check on Taylor. The report generated by Tenant Tracker included entries related to both 'Chantel Taylor,' a convicted offender, and 'Catherine Taylor,' indicating criminal convictions. Wanda Taylor, during the meeting, expressed doubts about the relevance of the entries associated with 'Chantel Taylor' and crossed them out, while entries for 'Catherine Taylor' reflected convictions for theft, forgery, and possession of a controlled substance.

The report contained a warning about the limitations of background checks not utilizing fingerprint analysis, emphasizing the need for additional identifying information to confirm accuracy. The court upheld the summary judgment, siding with Tenant Tracker on the grounds that the evidence did not support Taylor's claims regarding the accuracy of the report.

Catherine Taylor has a tattoo of the name 'Troy' on her left ankle, but Wanda confirmed she did not see any tattoo when reviewing Taylor's entries, leading her to ignore other details in the report. Wanda noted this discrepancy and observed that Taylor was visibly upset about the entries, citing a prior incident of misidentification due to her common name. Taylor had been confused with another 'Catherine Taylor' from Illinois, with whom she had previously sued for FCRA violations. Wanda's supervisor verified that Taylor's physical characteristics did not match those of the individuals listed in the report, concluding that the criminal history did not pertain to her. The Housing Authority quickly resolved the report issues and approved Taylor's Section 8 benefits application that same day. After obtaining additional identifying information from Taylor, Tenant Tracker conducted a new records search, which returned no criminal records. However, Taylor later became ineligible for the Section 8 housing voucher due to employment. Taylor subsequently sued Tenant Tracker, alleging violations of the FCRA for failing to ensure the accuracy of her consumer information, resulting in emotional distress. The district court granted summary judgment for Tenant Tracker, referencing precedent that required evidence of technical inaccuracy or negligence, which Taylor did not provide. The court affirmed the judgment on the basis that Taylor failed to demonstrate actual damages from any alleged FCRA violation.

Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Taylor is entitled to recover 'actual damages' resulting from Tenant Tracker's negligent noncompliance, as defined in 15 U.S.C. 1681o(a)(1). Mental pain and anxiety qualify as actual damages, but emotional distress claims must be substantiated by credible evidence of 'genuine injury,' observable by others, as established in Carey v. Piphus. The requirement of demonstrating 'genuine injury' applies not only to Section 1983 claims but also to various federal statutes, including the FCRA. Competent evidence is necessary for a consumer to assert a claim under the FCRA. Previous cases, such as Millstone v. O'Hanlon Reports, affirmed emotional distress damages when the plaintiff experienced significant mental anguish due to a significantly inaccurate consumer report. Other circuit decisions further illustrate acceptable evidence for establishing genuine injury, including severe anxiety and embarrassment due to credit report issues. Conversely, in Forshee v. Waterloo Industries, the plaintiff's vague testimony about emotional distress was deemed insufficient for damages.

The plaintiff, Taylor, did not suffer physical injury or receive medical treatment for psychological or emotional distress, and no witnesses confirmed any significant emotional distress. Similar cases under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) have established that mere feelings of upset or embarrassment are insufficient for actual damages. For instance, in Cousin, the plaintiff's emotions regarding an inaccurate credit report did not demonstrate genuine injury. Likewise, in Wantz and Ruffin-Thompkins, plaintiffs' claims of emotional distress lacked sufficient detail to establish damages. Taylor only reported emotional injury, with no adverse actions taken by the Housing Authority following the report. The situation was resolved quickly, with the Housing Authority approving her application on the same day. Her testimony about feeling upset and embarrassed, along with a brief episode of crying witnessed by a colleague, did not meet the threshold for proving genuine injury or actual damages. Consequently, the district court's dismissal of Taylor's FCRA claim was upheld, based on the insufficiency of her evidence.