LinkedIn Reference Report Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed

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.

According to a California federal judge’s April 14 ruling, LinkedIn Corp. did not violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) with its online feature that allows businesses to check a potential employee’s references without said job applicant’s knowledge. In light of this ruling, the judge has also granted the company’s motion to dismiss the proposed LinkedIn reference report class action lawsuit filed against them.

U.S. District Judge Paul S. Grewal states that LinkedIn’s reference searches cannot be categorized as “consumer reports” in the eyes of the law, siding with LinkedIn’s defense that it was not and did not act as a “consumer reporting agency,” since the plaintiffs of this reference report class action lawsuit willingly provided their reference information for the exact purpose of being electronically published.

“As LinkedIn notes, the facts alleged in plaintiffs’ complaint therefore support the inference that LinkedIn gathers the information about the employment histories of the subjects of the reference searches not to make consumer reports but to ‘carry out consumers’ information-sharing objectives,’” Judge Grewal wrote in his order dismissing the LinkedIn class action lawsuit.

Plaintiffs Tracee Sweet and three other named plaintiffs filed this LinkedIn class action lawsuit back in October 2014, alleging they received interests from job recruiters and businesses, but in the end were never even considered for the open job positions they had applied for once prospective employers connected with them on LinkedIn.

Sweet and the other plaintiffs seek to represent themselves as well as a Class of “all persons in the United States in the two years prior to the filing of [their complaint] who have had a Reference Search run on them that was initiated through LinkedIn’s ‘search for references’ functionality,” according to the reference report class action lawsuit.

Sweet further alleges that she had been offered a hospital position, which was later rescinded after the prospective employer reviewed her job references. She and the other plaintiffs asked the court to make a liberal interpretation of the FCRA, claiming LinkedIn should be considered a credit reporting agency, since the company collects and disseminates consumer information to third party groups and businesses.

The LinkedIn reference report class action lawsuit also alleges the company’s reports cause prospective employers to pass judgment on a job applicant’s reputation as mentioned in the FCRA, and possibly hurt LinkedIn applicant’s by potentially linking them with Ponzi schemers.

However, Judge Grewal was not convinced by the plaintiffs’ argument, ruling LinkedIn’s online service only shows users’ who are already included in a prospective employer’s network.

Additionally, the judge also agreed with LinkedIn that the proposed plaintiffs’ interpretation of the FCRA was too broad, but has found that the holes in the plaintiffs’ arguments can be fixed. As a result, the court has given the plaintiffs leave to amend their LinkedIn reference report class action lawsuit before May 19.

The plaintiffs are represented by James L. Davidson and Michael L. Greenwald of Greenwald Davidson PLLC and Todd Michael Friedman of Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman PC.

The LinkedIn Reference Report Class Action Lawsuit is Sweet, et al v. LinkedIn Corporation, Case No. 5:14-cv-04531, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.