Rover Class Action Lawsuit Alleges Overbroad Hiring Bans

In recent legal news, Rover faces a class action lawsuit claiming the service mishandled background checks for prospective employees.

According to plaintiff M. K. Newbrough, Rover, an online service enabling dog owners to connect with dog walkers, sitters and boarders, engages in “unlawful and discriminatory criminal history screening policies and practices, which have been used to deny employment opportunities to otherwise qualified job applicants.”

These policies allegedly violate a variety of laws, including New York City’s Human Rights Law.

Newbrough says she was preparing to move to New York City for a few months in late August 2018. While looking for part-time work to supplement her income, Newbrough reportedly applied to be a pet caretaker at Rover.

The plaintiff claims she filled out an online application. Upon approval, these applications are made viewable to dog owners.

As a part of her application, Newbrough says, she was required to pay for a background check with Checkr. In September 2018, she claims she received an email stating that “[y]our sitter profile has been reviewed and will go live on Rover.com once we receive word that your background check has cleared.”

However, Newbrough says she received an email in late September with the subject line, “Post-adverse action notice – Rover.”

According to the email, she would be unable to work with Rover as a result of a criminal history.

Within the email, Rover said its decision was outlined in a “pre-adverse action letter.” However, according to Newbrough, she hadn’t received this letter, and the post-adverse action notice was the first time she had heard of the issue.

The Rover class action lawsuit argues that she should have been informed of the issue through the purported pre-adverse action letter, but was never sent the notice.

Additionally, Newbrough claims her criminal history was not severe enough for Rover to deny her application.

Rover reportedly based its decision on three charges on Newbrough’s background check.

However, for one of the charges, no conviction was ever reached – meaning the charge is irrelevant, the Rover class action lawsuit says. Newbrough argues the remaining two charges were for offenses that were entirely nonviolent, resulted in only misdemeanor convictions and had no relationship with the treatment of animals.

“The background report that Rover received from Checkr clearly indicated that that her convictions were for misdemeanor offenses for which she did not receive any jail time, not felonies for which she was incarcerated,” the Rover class action lawsuit argues. “Yet this important fact did not make its way into Rover’s analysis.”

However, despite these facts, Rover allegedly violated human rights laws by denying Newbrough’s application. Based on this, Newbrough is taking action under New York City’s Human Rights Law.

The New York City Human Rights Law was passed after the city determined that “there is no greater danger to the health, morals, safety and welfare of the city and its inhabitants than the existence of groups prejudiced against one another and antagonistic to each other because of their actual or perceived differences, including those based on … conviction or arrest record.”

As a result, the city passed protections which prohibit premature inquiries into criminal records and discrimination based on conviction histories.

Newbrough argues that Rover violated this law with their “overbroad and/or arbitrary bans on hiring because of conviction histories” that allegedly “undermine and violate New York City’s clearly articulated policy.”

According to the Rover class action lawsuit, the New York City Human Rights Law has found that such acts of discrimination “menace the institutions and foundation of a free democratic state.”

“Through its procedures, Rover violated Plaintiff’s rights under the New York City Human Rights Law as amended by the Fair Chance Act, which was enacted to protect individuals with criminal convictions against irrational discrimination in employment and thus facilitate their reentry into society,” the Rover class action lawsuit claims.

Newbrough seeks to represent a Class of consumers in New York City who applied for a Rover profile and had a background check ordered for them before Rover made a conditional offer of employment.

She also seeks to represent two subclasses.

The first subclass includes individuals who were denied Rover profiles based on criminal charges that did not result in a conviction. The second subclass includes individuals who were denied Rover profiles based on criminal offense information despite being denied the opportunity to respond to the company’s analysis.

The plaintiff seeks injunctive or declaratory relief to correct Rover’s alleged discriminatory practices; compensatory, statutory and punitive damages; attorneys’ fees and court costs; pre- and post-judgment interest; payment of a reasonable service award to Newbrough for services she is rendering to potential Class Members; and any other relief deemed proper by the court.

Did you have a background check issued by a prospective employer? Did you fail to receive notification for some or all of this check? Tell us about it in the comments.

Newbrough and the proposed Class are represented by C. K. Lee of Lee Litigation Group PLLC.

The Rover Background Check Class Action Lawsuit is M. K. Newbrough v. Rover Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-05009, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Read More Lawsuit & Settlement News:

Walmart Class Action Says Company Fails to Register Customers for Tire Recalls

Walmart Class Action Lawsuit Says Customers Pay More For Generic Infant Tylenol

Lemon Law for New Cars | Defective New Vehicle Help

How Much Do JUUL Pods Cost for School Kids?