Luna v. Hansen & Adkins Auto Transport, Inc., 2020 WL 1969409 (9th Cir. 2020)
Leonard Luna filed this putative class action, alleging a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) because his former employer had provided him a FCRA disclosure statement simultaneously with other employment materials and had failed to provide a standalone FCRA authorization. The district court granted summary judgment to the employer, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the FCRA disclosure need not be provided at a point in time that is “distinct” from the time when other employment-related documents are provided to an applicant. The Court also held that the disclosure was “clear and conspicuous,” and observed that “applicants, such as big-rig truckers, can be expected to notice a standalone document featuring a bolded, underlined, capital-lettered heading.” Finally, the Court held that the FCRA authorization (as opposed to the disclosure) need not be a standalone document. See also Walker v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 953 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2020) (employer violated FCRA by including extraneous information in disclosure document, but employee is not entitled to “discuss” the results of a consumer report with the employer before adverse action is taken).
[View source.]
