A job applicant who claims he was not fully informed about adverse information that appeared on a background check is not entitled to relief under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (the FCRA), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Aug. 20.

The court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, in holding that Thomas Merck was not entitled to relief because he alleged no injury other than a statutory violation of the FCRA. In doing so, the appeals court affirmed the federal district court’s granting summary judgment for lack of standing.

Merck had applied for a position at Walmart and was offered a job as long as he had a successful background check. Merck failed to disclose a misdemeanor conviction, which showed up on his background report.

Walmart received a report indicating that Merck failed to disclose a negative item on his job application. Merck, however, received a report stating that he was not competitive for the job, and not disclosing a specific reason why.

Merck filed suit arguing that Walmart violated the FCRA by willfully failing to provide applicants with a full copy of their consumer report before taking adverse action against them.

The appeals court said that Merck had not established an “informational injury” based on Ramirez. The court said that even if Merck had had the full information, it would not have helped him, since his application was rejected because he failed to discuss his misdemeanor conviction.

“Merck has failed to point to sufficient evidence of adverse effects to survive summary judgment on his informational-injury theory of standing,” the appeals court said.

[View source.]