Sprint Can’t Dodge Class Action over Background Checks

Sprint has been unsuccessful at trying to persuade an Illinois federal judge to toss a proposed class action lawsuit alleging that the phone company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act when it asked job applicants to waive a number of their privacy rights.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly said that the failure to prove actual harm would not defeat the lawsuit. His ruling supported lead plaintiff Roberto Rodriguez, saying he didn’t have to prove his information would be used for inappropriate or harmful purposes in order to move forward with the lawsuit.

Judge Kennelly explained that the FCRA does not specifically require a consumer to prove actual harm or injury when business violate the stature.

“Congress enacted the FCRA to protect consumer control over personal information the exposure of which, though often necessary in the modern economy, can result in a significant invasion of privacy and can jeopardize a consumer’s personal, reputational and financial well-being,” explained Judge Kennelly. “The statute provides that when a person or entity willfully violates a mandate of the FCRA that is designed to protect these interests, the aggrieved consumer may recover statutory damages.”

Rodriguez filed the lawsuit in October 2015 to represent himself and others in a nationwide Class of individuals who applied for retail positions at Sprint and who signed a form authorizing a background check.

As part of the application, Rodriguez said applicants are required to fill out a form entitled “Authorization for Background Investigation.” By signing the form, applicants would allow Sprint to obtain “third party authorizations, a blanket release of multiple types of information from multiple types of entities, state specific information, and various statements above and beyond a disclosure that a consumer report would be procured.”

The lawsuit alleged that the form requires prospective Sprint employees to give the company access to private data held by the government, health care providers and educational institutions. The forms have allegedly been a part of Sprint’s employment application since 2013.

In November, Sprint attempted to pay Rodriguez $1,000, the maximum amount allowed for a single violation of FCRA, and filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Rodriguez rejected the offer and a Supreme Court ruling in January ruled that companies can’t try to dismiss class action lawsuit claims by making a full offer to relief to the lead plaintiff. Sprint still continued to try and dismiss the case, saying no harm could be proven.

The Supreme Court is currently reviewing a case against Spokeo in which the plaintiff also alleged violations of the FCRA. Spokeo maintained that it did not harm the plaintiff when it published incorrect but positive information about him online. The high court’s ruling in the Spokeo case will impact the course of many similar FCRA cases like the current Sprint background checks case in the future.

Rodriguez is represented by James Zouras and Ryan Stephan of Stephan Zouras LLP and E. Michelle Drake and Anna P. Prakash of Nichols Kaster PLLP.

The Sprint Background Checks Class Action Lawsuit is Rodriguez Jr. v. Sprint Corp et al., Case No.1:15-cv-10641, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.