Excerpted from Lexology by Squire Patton Boggs
The latest entry in a nearly decade-long dispute between a plaintiff and his former employer and manager, Mattiaccio v. DHA Grp., Inc., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129464 (D.D.C. July 21, 2020) is an in-depth analysis of standing under the FCRA in the face of unclear pleading by a pro se litigant.
The Mattiaccio plaintiff was terminated by the defendants based on alleged misconduct. The defendants claims that they performed pre- and post-employment background checks to investigate employee misconduct, which is normally exempt from the FCRA. However, the plaintiff alleged that these background checks were retaliation for a complaint he had filed against the defendants.
Relevant to our interests, plaintiff brought two FCRA claims. The first was an allegation that the defendants lacked “proper authorization” under Section 1681b(b)(2)(A) of the FCRA to perform the background checks, because the authorizations for the checks were not clearly formatted. The court determined that this was a bare procedural violation insufficient to give plaintiff standing to bring this claim, as he failed to allege any actual injury from this unclear formatting.
The second claim was construed by the court as an allegation that the plaintiff did not authorize a post-employment background check under § 1681b(b)(2)(A), and was not given a summary of rights or a chance to review his consumer report before he was terminated based on the post-employment background check, in violation of § 1681b(b)(3)(A).
For entire story click here