May 24, 2012

Swift Faces Class Action Over Background Checks

The case of Daniel et al. v. Swift Transportation Corp., filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, provides a reminder to employers of the importance in complying with Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) requirements prior to and during the hiring process. In the Swift case, three applicants were denied employment and filed suit claiming Swift obtained and used criminal background checks without required FCRA notice or authorization, among other alleged violations.

According to the complaint, it is alleged that Swift violated FCRA requirements to provide applicants and employees with clear and conspicuous stand-alone written disclosures that a consumer report may be used for employment purposes. The suit also alleges, among other things, that Swift failed to get proper authorization or consent before procuring such reports, failed to provide notice of the employees’ right to get a free copy of the report and dispute its accuracy and failed to provide pre-adverse or post-adverse action letters. 

The suit proposes three separate classes, consisting of 1) people who received inadequate disclosures, 2) people who were adversely treated after not being given a copy of their criminal report at least five days before the adverse decision was made, and 3) applicants who weren’t hired where Swift didn’t provide required disclosures within three days of making their ultimate employment decision. The suit claims that each proposed class has more than 300 members, and requests relief including class certification, unspecified statutory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest.

While employers have the right to perform criminal background checks under the FCRA, the procedure for properly performing those checks must be followed. Such procedures include a stand-alone notice and authorization, providing a copy of the FCRA Summary of Rights, providing a copy of the background check (in states where required), and providing pre- and post-adverse action letters with appropriate time to respond. Failure to comply with these procedures, as noted above, can result in costly class action litigation.

© MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP

About the Author

Eric Rumbaugh is a partner and represents management in all areas of labor and employment law.  He represents management in employment matters in state and federal courts and in labor arbitration. He also regularly represents management in administrative proceedings, including proceedings involving EEOC, OFCCP, NLRB, state fair employment and civil rights agencies and other matters. He counsels management regarding employment policies and pre-litigation planning.  In addition, Mr. Rumbaugh is co-coordinator of Michael Best’s Trade Secret and Non-Competition Team.  In...

414-225-2742

About the Author

Jason Kunschke is an attorney in the Milwaukee office and a member of the Labor and Employment Relations Practice Group. Mr. Kunschke advises clients on all facets of compliance with employment and labor relations laws, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Wisconsin Worker’s Compensation Act and has handled cases before the Equal Rights Division, Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, Worker’s Compensation Division, Wisconsin Personnel Commission, Wisconsin Employment Relations Commissions, the National Labor Relations Board, and in state and federal court.

414-225-2759

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.