Starbucks 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 Georgia man says Starbucks has been depriving employment applicants of their right to correct or explain erroneous background check reports.

Plaintiff Kevin Wills says defendant Starbucks Corp. has been remiss in its obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act in the way it handles the background checks of job applicants.

By failing to satisfy several mandatory disclosure requirements, he says, Starbucks is liable to him and a proposed Class of applicants who were denied employment based on the results of their background checks.

In evaluating applicants for employment, Starbucks allegedly requests background checks from Accurate Background Inc. Wills argues these background checks constitute “consumer reports” that are subject to the requirements of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, or FCRA.

The FCRA imposes specific requirements for consumer reports used for “employment purposes,” according to this Starbucks class action lawsuit. Before a potential employer denies employment based on the content of such a report, the applicant is entitled to get a copy of the report and a disclosure of their rights under the FCRA.

These disclosures are designed to give applicants a fair chance to explain the report’s contents or to correct any erroneous information.

Wills says he was denied employment at Starbucks because of erroneous information in his background check – errors he says could have been corrected if Starbucks had given him the proper disclosures.

He applied for a Starbucks job at its Buford, Ga. location. At the time, he says, he had an excellent work history that included previous Starbucks employment and no criminal history.

Unfortunately, the background check report that Accurate Background provided to Starbucks allegedly confused Wills with another man named Willis, stating that a Kevin W. Willis of Minnesota had been twice convicted for domestic violence. Based on that misinformation, Wills says, he was denied a job at Starbucks.

Wills says he did not receive a copy of the Starbucks background check until days after he was denied employment. He pointed out the error to the Starbucks store manager, but she allegedly only gave him the phone number for Accurate Background and told him to call to request a correction.

Starbucks thereby violated the terms of the FCRA, Wills argues, depriving him of the opportunity to point out the error in the report or to seek a correction from Accurate Background.

Wills seeks to represent a Class consisting of all persons in the U.S. against whom Starbucks made an adverse employment decision based in whole or in part of a consumer report, and to whom Starbucks did not provide a copy of the report with the required description of rights at least five business days before taking the adverse action.

He seeks an award of statutory damages ranging from $100 to $1,000 per violation of the FCRA, punitive damages, attorney fees and court costs, and any other relief the court deems warranted.

Wills is represented by attorneys James M. Feagle, Cliff R. Dosen, Kris Skaar and Justin T. Holcombe of Skaar & Feagle LLP, and Matthew A. Dooley and Anthony R. Pecora of O’Toole McLaughlin Dooley & Pecora Co. LPA.

The Starbucks Background Check FCRA Class Action Lawsuit is Wills v. Starbucks Corp., Case No. 1:17-cv-03654, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.