Background checks are a routine part of an employer’s hiring decision. Background checks can include information about an individual’s: work history, driving record, criminal history, use of social media, credit information and education. Because of the type of information included within a background check report, an inaccurate report can have significant consequences on an a job application. To guard against this, laws such as the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) have been promulgated to protect individuals from inaccurate background check reports. The FCRA requires that credit reporting agencies (which includes background screening companies) have, among other things, reasonable policies and procedures in place to ensure maximum accuracy of background check reports. Failure to institute reasonable polices or to adhere to those policies in place would result in a violation of the FCRA. This is what allegedly occurred in Williams v. First Advantage LNS Screening Sols. Inc., No. 17-11447 (11th Cir. Jan. 9, 2020).
In Williams, Plaintiff Richard Williams instituted a lawsuit against First Advantage Background Services (“First Advantage”) for violating the FCRA. Williams applied for a job with Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. (“Winn-Dixie”). As a part of the job application, First Advantage provided Winn-Dixie with a background check report for Mr. Williams. The background check prepared by First Advantage, however, included criminal records of an individual named “Ricky Williams”. Because of the false criminal record information included in the background check report, Winn-Dixie did not offer Mr. Williams the position that he had applied for. The inclusion of the information by First Advantage was alleged to be a violation of 1681e(b) of the FCRA, which requires companies such as First Advantage to institute policies and procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy of its reports.
At trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Mr. Williams and awarded $250,000 in compensatory damages as well as $3.3 million in punitive damages. First Advantage appealed the jury’s damage award to the 11th Circuit. The 11th Circuit affirmed the award of the $250,000 in compensatory damages award but reduced the punitive damages award to $1 million, applying a 4:1 ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages.
If a background screening report has cost you a job offer, our page on First Advantage background check errors explains how the dispute process works and what the FCRA allows you to recover.
If you believe you have been subjected to an inaccurate background check report that may have violated the law, it is important to seek the guidance of a skilled FCRA and Consumer Protection Attorney as soon as possible. To schedule a consultation to discuss your situation with one of our attorneys, contact The Kim Law Firm, LLC today by calling 855-996-6342.
Did a background check cost you a job?
The Kim Law Firm helps consumers with background check errors under the FCRA and FDCPA. Get a free case review or call 855-996-6342 — you pay nothing unless we win.
False criminal records are a screening industry problem
A criminal record attributed to the wrong person usually comes from name-based matching. Aggregated court databases are indexed by name and date of birth, and where the identifiers are thin a search returns a record belonging to someone else entirely. Every large employment screening agency draws on the same kinds of sources, which is why the pattern recurs across vendors rather than being confined to one, and why a report that killed a job offer is worth reading against the actual court docket rather than accepting.
- First Advantage — a national screening agency serving employers across many sectors.
- HireRight — runs high-volume criminal searches for corporate clients.
- Sterling — combines court record searches with employment verification.
- Checkr — screens applicants at speed for platform employers.
- IntelliCorp — relies substantially on aggregated criminal databases.
- Asurint — performs direct county-level record retrieval.
Get the report from the agency, then pull the underlying court record yourself and compare the identifiers: full name, middle initial, date of birth, and any case number the report cites. A mismatch on any of those is the evidence, and it is usually decisive. Dispute in writing with the docket attached, state that the record belongs to a different person, and ask the agency to send the corrected report to the employer. An agency that matched on name alone has a difficult time defending that as a reasonable procedure.