Lawsuit: Paramount Illegally Obtains Applicants’ Credit Reports

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Paramount Pictures Corporation was hit with a class action lawsuit, alleging that it improperly performed consumer reports for the purpose of employment in violation of federal law.

California resident and plaintiff Michael Peikoff filed the class action lawsuit against Paramount in a California federal court on Jan. 7, alleging the film production company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act when it obtained a consumer report about him illegally.

“Paramount, as standard practice, routinely procures or causes to be procured ‘consumer reports’ from consumer reporting agencies about its employees or prospective employees for employment purposes,” the Paramount class action lawsuit explains.

Peikoff alleges that Paramount violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by not disclosing and obtaining consent from the employee or potential employee to obtain the credit report.

He claims in the FCRA class action lawsuit that he applied for a job with Paramount in February 2011.

Peikoff alleges that on his job application it stated: “I authorize the reference listed above, as well as other individuals whom Paramount contacts, to provide Paramount with any and all information concerning my previous employment and any other pertinent information. Further, I release all parties and persons from all liability from any damages that may result from furnishing such information to Paramount as well as from any use or disclosure of such information by Paramount of any of its agents, employees  or representatives.”

Peikoff alleges in his class action lawsuit that Paramount used this language as permission to obtain a credit report about him, which he says is a in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

According to the federal law, “a consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report for employment purposes only if . . . a clear and conspicuous disclosure has been made in writing to the consumer at any time before the report is procured or caused to be procured, in a document that consists solely of the disclosure, that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes.”

This means that the consent form may not be attached or hidden with any other forms, such as on a job application.

In addition, the employer must obtain “authorization in writing” by the individual in order to procure a report about an employee or prospective employee.

According to Peikoff’s Fair Credit Reporting Act class action lawsuit, “Paramount knew or should have known about its legal obligations under the FCRA. Paramount obtained or had available substantial written materials that apprised it of its duties under the FCRA.”

He added in the Paramount class action lawsuit that “Paramount intentionally and/or recklessly acted consciously in breaching its known duties and depriving plaintiff and other class members their rights under the FCRA.”

Peikoff is proposing a nationwide class of individuals who had a consumer report obtained by Paramount for employment purposes “without first providing a clear and conspicuous disclosure in writing to the consumer at any time before the report was procured or caused to be procured, in a document that consists solely of the disclosure, that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes.”

If Paramount is found liable for the FCRA violations, it will have to pay $100 to $1,000 for each violation. Peikoff is also asking for punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.

Peikoff is represented by Peter Roald Dion-Kindem of The Dion-Kindem Law Firm and Lonnie C. Blanchard III of The Blanchard Law Group APC.

Counsel information for Paramount isn’t yet available.

The Paramount FCRA Class Action Lawsuit is Peikoff v. Paramount Pictures Corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00068, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.