The disclosure and consent requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act provide basic protections to workers when their jobs are at stake.

On January 25, 2012, United States District Court Judge Deborah K. Chasanow denied Defendant Domino’s Pizza’s Motion to Dismiss in Singleton, et al., v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 8:11-cv-01823-DKC (D. Md.). In a lengthy opinion, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs properly alleged that Domino’s violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by (1) running background checks on employees without proper authorization; and (2) “systematically” failing to provide employees with copies of their background checks prior to taking adverse employment action against them.

In addition to allowing Plaintiffs go forward with their claims, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs properly alleged that Domino’s violations were “willful.” Although Domino’s argued that its interpretation of the statute’s disclosure and authorization requirements was not unreasonable, the Court disagreed. According to the Court, “Domino’s fail[ed] to show that its interpretation of [FCRA] was ‘not objectively unreasonable.’”

“We are pleased with the Court’s ruling and eager to move forward with our claims,” said Plaintiff’s attorney Kai Richter. “The disclosure and consent requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act provide basic protections to workers when their jobs are at stake. There is no excuse for a company to ignore these requirements when conducting background checks on employees and job applicants,” said Richter.

Plaintiff Adrian Singleton formerly worked for Domino’s in Waldorf, Maryland. Plaintiff Justin D’Heilly formerly worked for Domino’s in St. Paul, Minnesota. Both Singleton and D’Heilly allege that they were terminated from Domino’s based on undisclosed information in their background checks that was never shared with them by Domino’s. Moreover, when D’Heilly later contacted the St. Paul Police Department to determine what information Domino’s might have obtained, he was told that his record was clean with the exception of two speeding tickets.

Plaintiffs are represented by Kai Richter, Michelle Drake, and Rebekah Bailey from the law firm of Nichols Kaster, PLLP, as well as by Alane Tempchin of Sullivan, Talbott and Batt. Nichols Kaster also represents employees in a similar case, Smith, et al. v. Capital One, N.A., 1:11-cv-03504-RDB (D. Md.). Nichols, Kaster has offices in Minneapolis, Minnesota and San Francisco, California. Individuals may find more information about this action at http://www.nka.com or by calling (877) 448-0492.

###