O’Reilly Auto Parts Class Action Lawsuit Alleges Illegal Background Checks

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 proposed class action lawsuit was filed against three subsidiaries of O’Reilly Automotive Inc. on Monday claiming that its retail locations improperly obtain and use information from prospective employees’ background reports on a routine basis.

Lead plaintiff Raphael Saye alleges in the O’Reilly Auto Parts class action lawsuit that he applied online for a job at an O’Reilly Auto Parts location in July of last year and “that in evaluating him for employment, [O’Reilly] procured or caused to be prepared a background report …, and an investigative consumer report.” Saye alleges that his application was initially approved, but later rejected based on information in a background report obtained by O’Reilly.

The class action lawsuit accuses O’Reilly Auto Parts of improperly obtaining the background report during Saye’s application process and also of improperly using information from the report, as well as failing to provide Saye with a copy of the report and an opportunity to contest the information contained in it.

Saye alleges in his O’Reilly Auto Parts class action lawsuit that “[i]n connection with his employment application, Plaintiff completed Defendants’ standard online materials” and “[i]n the second to final webpage of the application portal, in a section titled ‘Criminal,’ a subsection titled ‘Terms and Conditions’ appears with two checkboxes below it.”

Saye explains “[t]he second checkbox indicates ‘I accept the Background Check Terms and Conditions'” and “[w]ithin the expanded ‘Background Check Terms and Conditions’ section is language purportedly disclosing to prospective applicants … that a background report may be obtained about them in connection with their employment application” further “[u]pon clicking this checkbox next to the text ‘I accept the Background Check Terms and Conditions,’ Plaintiff and class members purportedly authorized Defendants to procure a background report.”

Saye also claims he “also selected and clicked on the checkbox requesting a copy of any ‘criminal background report’ procured.” Saye complaint claims that O’Reilly’s disclosure “contains extraneous information and is not a clear and unambiguous disclosure in a stand-alone document,” and, therefore “it does not meet the requirements under the law” and also violates the Federal Consumer Reporting Act.

Regarding the alleged improper use of information from Saye’s ill begotten  background check, the O’Reilly Auto class action lawsuit alleges that “[f]ollowing completion of Plaintiff’s employment application, but pending the outcome of his background investigation, Plaintiff was originally offered a position with Defendants,” however, “after Defendants had procured and/or obtained Plaintiff’s background report, Defendants terminated Plaintiff.”

“Defendants never provided Plaintiff with a copy of the report and/or a summary of his rights under the Federal Credit Reporting Act,” alleges Saye, and “Defendants never provided a separate ‘post-adverse action’ notice which includes the contact information of the consumer reporting agency that supplied the report; a statement that the agency supplying the report did not make the decision to take the unfavorable action and cannot give specific reasons for the action; and a notice of the applicant or employee’s right to dispute the accuracy of the information furnished by the consumer reporting agency and that a free additional report is available from the agency if the person asks for it within 60 days, among other requirements under [the Federal Credit Reporting Act].”

Saye purports to represent a class of people nationwide who completed O’Reilly’s employment application over the past two years and were allegedly subject to a background check, as well as a subclass of California residents who applied to O’Reilly. The class action lawsuit seeks an injunction against the practice and damages.

Lead plaintiff, Raphael Saye, is represented by Raul Perez, Melissa Grant, Arnab Banerjee and Alexandria Witte of Capstone Law APC.

The O’Reilly Auto Parts Background Check Class Action Lawsuit is Raphael Saye ,et al. v. CSK Auto Inc., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-03470, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.