Applicant Says Trucking Company’s Background Check Forms Were Too Confusing and Files Class Action
By Judy Kneiszel
An applicant for a trucking job alleged that the company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by making background check disclosure forms too complicated. He filed a class action on behalf of applicants and employees who had received the forms.
In Askins v. CRST Expedited, Inc., a California appellate court addressed whether workers or job applicants must show actual harm in order to sue under the federal FCRA for improper background check disclosures.
Background
The complainant had applied for a job with a trucking company. During the hiring process and employment, the company conducted background checks and provided disclosure and authorization forms related to those checks.
The FCRA requires background check forms to be stand-alone documents. It states that before a background check, called a consumer report, can be ordered for employment purposes, a document that “consists solely of the disclosure that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes” must be provided to the applicant or employee.
The complainant alleged, however, that the forms provided by the trucking company violated the FCRA because they:
- Contained extraneous information, and
- Didn’t comply with the law’s standalone disclosure requirements.
He filed a class action on behalf of applicants and employees who allegedly received noncompliant disclosure and authorization forms before background checks were obtained.
A trial court initially certified the class, but later, relying on another California case, Limon v. Circle K Stores Inc., the employer argued the class should be decertified because the driver couldn’t show a “concrete injury” or actual harm from the alleged FCRA violations. The trial court agreed and decertified the class. An appeal was filed.
Appellate court’s decision
The California Court of Appeal reversed the decertification order and held that:
- The FCRA allows recovery of statutory damages for willful violations even when no actual harm or concrete injury can be proven; and
- A violation of the employee’s statutory rights under the FCRA is enough to establish standing in California state court.
The court emphasized that Congress intentionally created statutory damages under the FCRA to allow claims even where measurable harm couldn’t be shown. It also rejected the reasoning from Limon, concluding that the earlier case interpreted the statute too narrowly.
The appeals court sent the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.
Employer takeaways
Despite this ruling coming from a California appeals court, the FCRA is a federal law, so employers nationwide should view this case as a reminder that FCRA compliance matters.
The case shows that:
- Employers may face FCRA class actions even when applicants or employees can’t show actual harm or financial loss.
- Background check disclosure and authorization forms should be reviewed carefully for strict compliance with the FCRA’s standalone disclosure requirements.
- Forms should be clear, concise, and free from unrelated or extraneous information.
- Employers using background checks should audit onboarding packets and vendor-provided forms regularly.
This post is locked to comments.