Recently a US District Court dismissed a class action lawsuit after they found that the plaintiff had failed to meet the requirements of Article III under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The decision by the court for this case (Nokchan v. Lyft, Inc) was a direct result of a case decided earlier in the year. In Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins the court found that plaintiff must show “concrete injury” to establish standing under Article III.
In Nokchan v. Lyft, Inc the plaintiff alleged Lyft violated his privacy and statutory rights by failing to comply with disclosure requirements under the FCRA and state laws with their employment application. Nokchan also alleged Lyft failed to provide a “clear and unambiguous” disclosure of his rights under the FCRA and state laws at the time. Lyft was successful in getting the case dismissed citing the Spokeo case.
The plaintiff attempted to separate his claim from the precedent created under Spokeo by stating an invasion of privacy is recognized as an injury and that he suffered “informational injury” which is sufficiently concrete to meet the standard set by Spokeo. The court disagreed.
Since the Spokeo case was decided, several US District Courts have differed with their interpretation of what constitutes a concrete injury. It seems likely further clarification will be necessary by the US Supreme Court on this topic.
Cases such as these further highlight the necessity of companies to review their hiring procedures to make sure they are compliant under the FCRA and other employment law, as well as strongly consider EEOC guidelines when creating their policies and procedures.
Partnering with a strong background screening provider who provides the necessary products and services is a good step in avoiding litigation such as this.
Here is some additional information about this case:
Nokchan v Lyft: Since Spokeo Decision Privacy Continues to be Hot Topic as Circuit Courts Fracture