UPS Says Background Check Class Action Lawsuit Should Be Tossed

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.

United Parcel Service argues that a class action lawsuit alleging the mail and delivery service violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act when it obtained and used background checks to make hiring decisions should be dismissed.

Lead plaintiff John Riley alleged in his class action lawsuit filed earlier this year that he lost an employment offer from UPS for a customer service job after the company used information from a background check in its employment decisions.

The plaintiff claims UPS never told him why they yanked his job offer and did not disclose the contents of his background report.

UPS argues that the class action should be dismissed because the plaintiff failed to show that he suffered any actual injuries when the company pulled the job offer. The company contends that the plaintiff did not establish that UPS revoked his employment offer based on inaccurate or false information contained in his background report.

“The purpose of the FCRA — to ensure fair and accurate credit reporting — is not triggered by the facts in this case,” argued UPS in its motion to dismiss. “Because there was nothing inaccurate in his consumer report, there was nothing for plaintiff to contest, and no harm or risk of harm from UPS’s alleged failure to provide pre-adverse action notice.”

Contrary to what the plaintiff says in his complaint, UPS argues that Riley was provided a copy of the consumer report UPS used to make its hiring decision. Additionally, UPS contends that it sent the plaintiff all information required under the FCRA; consumer reports and an explanation of rights under the FCRA.

“[O]n November 9, 2016, First Advantage Background Services Corp. (‘First Advantage’), the consumer reporting agency (‘CRA’) used by UPS, sent Plaintiff a letter containing all the information required by [the FCRA],” contends UPS. “Specifically, the letter contained Plaintiff’s consumer report and a written description of his consumer rights under the FCRA.”

Further, UPS argues, even if the FCRA requires employers to send an exact copy of the information used to make hiring decisions, their failure to send an exact copy would only be a small violation of the act that doesn’t amount to a “concrete injury.”

“A bare procedural violation of the FCRA’s notice provisions does not confer standing,” argues UPS in its motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit. “[The] Plaintiff claims only that UPS did not give him notice as required by [the FCRA]. He does not allege that his consumer report contained any inaccurate information.”

“Because Plaintiff has not and cannot meet his burden of showing a concrete injury-in-fact, his claim should be dismissed,” UPS concludes in its motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit.

Riley is represented by Brandon J. Hill of Wenzel Fenton Cabassa PA.

The UPS Background Check Class Action Lawsuit is John Riley, et al. v. United Parcel Service of America Inc., Case No. 6:17-cv-00254, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.