Circle K Class Action Says Employee Background Checks Violate FCRA

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.

A class action lawsuit filed by a Circle K job applicant claims that the company’s employee background check forms violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Plaintiff Ernesto Limon says he worked for the Circle K convenience store in California from June 29, 2018 through July 31, 2018.

He alleges that during the application process, he was required to fill out the company’s standard “Fair Credit Reporting Act Consent” form permitting the company to obtain a consumer report verifying his background and experience, more commonly known as conducting a “background check.”

Limon says that he signed the form on June 21, 2018. Allegedly, he was confused by the standard disclosure and authorization form, and as a result, did not understand that Circle K would be requesting “consumer reports,” as they are defined by the Fair Credit Reporting Act, or FCRA.

The Circle K background check class action lawsuit argues that Circle K violates the FCRA by putting more information in their disclosure and authorization form than is legally allowed.

Allegedly, the FCRA only allows the disclosure and authorization form to contain information about the disclosure and authorization, and no extraneous details.

The Circle K class action claims this is required by the FCRA to “prevent the consumer from being distracted by other extraneous information side-by-side with this very important disclosure.”

Limon says that the FCRA requires that the disclosure not be “diminished in importance by including unrelated information.”

The Circle K class action further argues that the consumer report disclosure and authorization “must be clear and conspicuous, understandable and noticeable,” and that Circle K’s disclosure was not.

Limon claims that Circle K’s disclosure and authorization form included extraneous information not allowed by law. Allegedly, the extra details were aimed at releasing the company from any liability for obtaining this information.

The Circle K class action states that the disclosure and authorization form read “I authorize, without reservation, any person or entity contacted by Circle K Stores Inc. or its agent(s) to furnish the above stated information, and I release any such person or entity from any liability for furnishing such information.”

Allegedly, the company hired Limon after procuring his consumer report after having him sign the form. Limon says that this form is standard for the company, and all applicants for employment with the company must sign the form.

The Circle K consumer report class action lawsuit aims to represent not only Limon, but all other applicants who were required to sign the disclosure and authorization form that violated the FCRA.

Limon claims that he and other consumers are entitled to statutory damages of at least $1,000 for each violation of the FCRA.

Allegedly, the company violated the FCRA by not complying with the act’s requirements for getting a person’s consent to obtain their consumer report, and violated the act in another way by effectively obtaining a consumer report unlawfully, without following the procedures of the FCRA.

Limon is represented by Eric B. Kingsley and Kelsey M. Szamet of Kingsley & Kingsley APC, and by Emil Davtyan of Davtyan Professional Law Corporation.

The Circle K Consumer Report Class Action Lawsuit is Ernesto Limon v. Circle K Stores Inc., Case 1:18-at-00883, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.