Paul Tassin  |  August 10, 2017

Category: Closed Class Actions

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.

This settlement is closed!

Please see what other class action settlements you might qualify to claim cash from in our Open Settlements directory!

postmates

Would-be couriers who applied to work for Postmates may be entitled to payment under a background check class action settlement.

Plaintiffs Loretta Nesbitt, Jamal St. Louis, and Arian Nunez all claimed they were denied employment as a Postmates courier based on the results of background checks.

As part of the employment application process, Postmates solicits applicants’ background checks from Sterling Infosystems Inc. Before soliciting these background checks, Postmates provides the applicant with a document that mentions the background check in a 10-plus page document that also includes a non-disclosure agreement and other administrative matters related to the application.

None of the three plaintiffs were offered work as a Postmates courier. They all claimed Postmates made the decision not to employ them based on their background check results, without providing them with a copy of those results.

The plaintiffs argued that this applicant background check procedure used by Postmates violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.

They claimed Postmates failed to provide them with the legally required stand-alone disclosure before requesting the background checks. Then, after the background checks were run, Postmates allegedly failed to provide the applicants with copies of the results and a notice of their rights before taking adverse action against the applicants based on the contents of the background check reports.

The parties agreed to this Postmates class action settlement earlier this year and submitted it to the court for preliminary approval. Under terms of the settlement, Postmates will create s $2.5 million settlement fund to be distributed to Class Members. Payments will be different for different Class Members depending on whether and when they were denied courier work because of their background check results.

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Harold Kahn required changes to the settlement’s objection procedures before granting preliminary approval. With those changes, Class Members can object to the settlement in person at the final fairness hearing, without having to submit a written objection in advance.

Postmates continues to deny the plaintiffs’ allegations but has agreed to the settlement in the interest of avoiding further litigation. The court has made no determination of liability.

Who’s Eligible

Class Members eligible to claim settlement benefits include all persons who signed up to work as a Postmates courier and were subject to a background check between July 31, 2013 and May 1, 2016. This Class is divided into two subgroups, each of which qualifies for different benefits:

  • Category 1681b(b)(3) covers all Class Members who received negative background check results and were not granted access to the Postmates platform as a courier between July 31, 2013 and Sept. 24, 2015
  • Category 1681b(b)(2) covers all other Class Members, whether or not they were granted access to the Postmates platform
Potential Award

Up to $75.

Actual payments will be determined in part by the number of valid and timely claims received. Class Members in Category 1681b(b)(3) will be paid three times as much as Class Members in Category 1681b(b)(2) who submit Claim Forms.

The parties estimate that Category 1681b(b)(3) payments will be between $42 and $75, and Category 1681b(b)(2) payments will be between $14 and $25.

Proof of Purchase

Class Members in Category 1681b(b)(2) must file Claim Forms no later than Oct. 17, 2017 to receive payment. The settlement administrator does not request any other documentation besides the information requested on the Claim Form.

Class Members in Category 1681b(b)(3) will receive payment without submitting a Claim Form.

Claim Form

CLICK HERE TO FILE A CLAIM »

Claim Form Deadline

10/17/2017

Case Name

Nesbitt, et al. v. Postmates Inc., Case No. CGC15547146, in the Superior Court of the State of California County of San Francisco

Final Hearing

11/7/2017

Settlement Website

www.NesbittFCRASettlement.com

Claims Administrator

Nesbitt FCRA Settlement
c/o JND Class Action Administration
P.O. Box 6878
Broomfield, CO 80021
1-888-213-8889
NesbittFCRASettlement@jndla.com

Class Counsel

E. Michelle Drake
John G. Albanese
BERGER & MONTAGUE PC

Joseph A. Fitapelli
Nicholas P. Melito
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER LLP

Defense Counsel

Rod M. Fliegel
William Simmons
LITTLER MENDELSON PC

We tell you about cash you can claim EVERY WEEK! Sign up for our free newsletter.

12 thoughts onPostmates Courier Background Check Class Action Settlement

  1. Sarah says:

    Add me to this

  2. Courier says:

    When a final case resolution occurs, (in regard to an action that was posted here on Top Class Actions) and distributions on that particular settlement begin to actually be mailed out, by what criteria does it necessarily get a mention or posting on TCA’s Facebook? Does that depend on the (minimum) number of members comprising the class? Or is it based on the size of the total judgement? This case settlement was $2.5M. Will it get mention on Facebook when check mailings occur? Or are only bigger ones featured there? ($25M)? Greater? Just trying to grasp the comprehensiveness of info available …

  3. Long Circuit says:

    WELL, since On November 8, 2017, the Court granted final approval of the Settlement, I wonder how many more months / years we wait now … ?

    I am sure someone will likely be along this summer to give us a plethora of information, like:

    No further update yet.

    1. Rumplestiltskin says:

      That was this past winter. It is now spring (which has mostly passed too). Maybe by this midsummer we WILL hear something. Maybe.

  4. UnderDog says:

    Which class member group has the sexier name?
    Is it 1681b(b)(2) ?
    OR,
    1681b(b)(3) ?

    These legal eagles must really know how to party … with these hip monikers and all ….

  5. Lee says:

    I received a check from Nesbitt so I know this case. I guess I am lucky to get the check.

    1. Adam says:

      I myself expect to receive a check from Postmates via JND Class Action Administration.

      A small one, of course, as I WAS denied my background results, but not access to being a deliverer.

      Everyone being sent a check will be lucky to get it … because they are being delivered by the USPS, which

      only lost 1% of all mail, until a significant increase in that figure in recent years.

  6. Nicholas Catania says:

    What is going on with Nesbitt vs. Postmates

    1. GlacialJustice says:

      On November 8, 2017, the Court granted final approval of the Settlement.

      This seems to be the most current info from the claims administrator’s website.

      If I find anything more recent or informational I will try and post it.

      Information seems to make the days of waiting in the dark less dark.

      Hope this resolves in some weeks instead of a lot of months.

  7. RAW says:

    I think what is sad about this article, is the inappropriate use of the word/term “employment”. Those who “onboard” with Postmates.com are contracting with Postmates, not for employment, but rather USE OF THEIR PLATFORM. Huge difference btw employment and independent contractor.

    Anyone suing Postmates.com or any other on-demand service provider ought to feel ashamed and just acknowledge themselves as being money-hungry, integrity-lacking human doing.

    This perception of mine is coming from a twice convicted felon, who reformed himself and then had his records expunged so that he will stay the course of being a true contribution to society instead of acting like combative and hostile victim.

    Thank God, for Postmates, et. al. for doing the background checks. It keeps people safe.

    Especially with what I am witnessing in my world today.

  8. Nicholas Picano says:

    Is it too late to get on this one?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. By submitting your comment and contact information, you agree to receive marketing emails from Top Class Actions regarding this and/or similar lawsuits or settlements, and/or to be contacted by an attorney or law firm to discuss the details of your potential case at no charge to you if you qualify. Required fields are marked *

Please note: Top Class Actions is not a settlement administrator or law firm. Top Class Actions is a legal news source that reports on class action lawsuits, class action settlements, drug injury lawsuits and product liability lawsuits. Top Class Actions does not process claims and we cannot advise you on the status of any class action settlement claim. You must contact the settlement administrator or your attorney for any updates regarding your claim status, claim form or questions about when payments are expected to be mailed out.