Why should consumer reporting agencies follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy? Because it is the law, and it is fair to individuals applying for jobs.
We, at Randisi & Associates, Inc., often feel tremendous pressure to turn around criminal conviction reports quickly. But turning around criminal conviction reports
We often feel tremendous pressure to turn around criminal conviction reports quickly. But turning around criminal conviction reports quickly WITHOUT following the law to assure accuracy can result in errors as is described in a recent lawsuit.
In a recent blog post we emphasized the importance of doing background checks the proper way.
A summary of the lawsuit is below:
Consumer reporting agencies (“CRAs”) “must follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual” about whom a background report relates. Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b). If they do not, and harm is caused, they are liable. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n & 16810.
Here, Defendant ADP Screening and Selection Services, Inc., (“ADP-SASS”) sold and delivered a background report to New Benevis, Inc. regarding Plaintiff Pedro Luis Ramos III in connection with his job application which falsely alleged that he was a convicted drug dealer. Defendant ADP-SASS included these allegations in Plaintiffs report even though its own internal “ADP Crim Radar” database indicated that Plaintiff had no criminal convictions.
It relied on erroneous information manually uploaded into its system by a vendor, rather than require the vendor to upload photographs of the actual court records so it could review them itself. In reliance on this false report, New Benevis, Inc. withdrew its job offer to Plaintiff.
“Whenever a [CRA] prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates.” 15. U.S.C. § 1681e(b). “A report is inaccurate under the FCRA when it is ‘patently incorrect’ or when it is ‘misleading in such a way and to such an extent that it can be expected to have an adverse effect.” Fernandez v. Rentgrow, Inc., 341 F.R.D. 174, 191 (D. Md. 2022)
Defendant ADP-SASS willfully and as a matter of procedure fails to take additional steps to investigate information it receives from other sources that conflicts with information contained in its own internal databases before sending out background reports about those individuals. [R&A comment – In another recent blog post we outlined the procedures that we follow to assure accuracy.]
James P. Randisi, President of Randisi & Associates, Inc., has been helping employers protect their clients, workforce and reputation through implementation of employment screening and drug testing programs since 1999. This post does not constitute legal advice. Randisi & Associates, Inc. is not a law firm. Always contact competent employment legal counsel. Mr. Randisi can be contacted by phone at 410.494.0232 or Email: info@randisiandassociates.com or the website at randisiandassociates.com
