Plaintiff brought action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia after being terminated by Defendant without receiving pre-adverse notice, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Because the FCRA violation itself was not disputed, this Court only considered whether Plaintiff adequately established actual, statutory, reputational, punitive, and emotional distress damages resulting from the FCRA violation and whether Defendant’s conduct was willful. The Court ultimately granted summary judgment for Defendant on all claims except Plaintiff’s emotional distress claim, which should be allowed to proceed.
What was the case about?
Plaintiff filed suit after his employment was terminated based on a standardized background check that revealed two pending misdemeanor charges. 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3)(A) requires that an employer provide the consumer with a copy of the report and a description of their rights under the FCRA before taking any adverse action. Here, Defendant failed to provide such notice, and therefore, conceded to its FCRA Violation. Plaintiff alleges that this violation was willful and is seeking actual, reputational, statutory, punitive, and emotional distress damages. A United States Magistrate Judge initially recommended granting summary judgment for Defendant for all claims except Plaintiff’s emotional distress claim, which should be denied.
Plaintiff raised several objections to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. First, he argued that because Defendant’s actions were a clear violation of the FCRA, they must have been willful. However, the Court agreed with the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the record contained no evidence showing Defendant intended to interfere with Plaintiff’s rights. Second, Plaintiff claimed reputational harm when Defendant allegedly obtained a second background check without authorization and shared that information with other employees. Again, the Court upheld the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Plaintiff had authorized a new background check by accepting conditional employment, and such authorization invalidated any claims for breach of privacy.
Defendant also objected to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation regarding Plaintiff’s emotional distress claim, arguing that Plaintiff’s testimony was conclusory and lacked specific details about how the FCRA violation had harmed him. However, based on Plaintiff’s testimony, the Court found that the incident caused him depression and made him feel victimized. Because a plaintiff in an FCRA case is not required to offer corroborating evidence beyond their own testimony to support emotional distress damages, the Court held that it could not rule out such damages as a matter of law.
How did the Court Rule?
The Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Final Report and Recommendation as its Opinion and Order. Accordingly, it granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s claims for actual, statutory, reputational, and punitive damages, but denied the motion as to Plaintiff’s emotional distress claim, which the Court will consider further.
