865 F.3d 884 (7th Cir. 2017), 16-3355, Groshek v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.

Docket Nº:16-3355, 16-3711
Citation:865 F.3d 884
Opinion Judge:Bauer, Circuit Judge.
Party Name:CORY GROSHEK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TIME WARNER CABLE, INC., Defendant-Appellee. CORY GROSHEK, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GREAT LAKES HIGHER EDUCATION CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee
Attorney:For CORY GROSHEK, Plaintiff - Appellant (16-3711): Robert J. Gingras, Attorney, Heath Paul Straka, Attorney, GINGRAS, CATES & LUEBKE, S.C., Madison, WI; Michael J. Modl, Attorney, AXLEY BRYNELSON LLP, Madison, WI. For TIME WARNER CABLE, Defendant - Appellee (16-3711): Joseph W. Ozmer, II, Attorne...
Judge Panel:Before BAUER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and DEGUILIO,[*] District Judge..
Case Date:August 01, 2017
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 884

865 F.3d 884 (7th Cir. 2017)

CORY GROSHEK, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

TIME WARNER CABLE, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

CORY GROSHEK, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

GREAT LAKES HIGHER EDUCATION CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee

Nos. 16-3355, 16-3711

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

August 1, 2017

Argued February 22, 2017

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 2:15-cv-00157-pp -- Pamela Pepper, Judge.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. No. 3:15-cv-00143-jdp -- James D. Peterson, Chief Judge.

For CORY GROSHEK, Plaintiff - Appellant (16-3711): Robert J. Gingras, Attorney, Heath Paul Straka, Attorney, GINGRAS, CATES & LUEBKE, S.C., Madison, WI; Michael J. Modl, Attorney, AXLEY BRYNELSON LLP, Madison, WI.

For TIME WARNER CABLE, Defendant - Appellee (16-3711): Joseph W. Ozmer, II, Attorney, Abigail Stecker Romero, Attorney, KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER, LLP, Atlanta, GA.

For CORY GROSHEK, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellant (16-3355): Robert J. Gingras, Attorney, Heath Paul Straka, Attorney, GINGRAS, CATES & LUEBKE, S.C., Madison, WI; Michael J. Modl, Attorney, AXLEY BRYNELSON LLP, Madison, WI.

For GREAT LAKES HIGHER EDUCATION CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee (16-3355): John N. Giftos, Attorney, Roisin H. Bell, Attorney, Kevin St. John, Attorney, BELL GIFTOS ST. JOHN, Madison, WI.

Before BAUER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and DEGUILIO,[*] District Judge..

OPINION

Page 885

Bauer, Circuit Judge.

Over the course of a year and a half, Appellant Cory Groshek submitted 562 job applications to various employers, including Appellees Time Warner Cable, Inc. and Great Lakes Higher Education Corporation (collectively, " Appellees" ).1 The job application, which Appellees provided to Groshek, included a disclosure and authorization

Page 886

form informing him that a consumer report may be procured in making the employment decision; the form also contained other information, such as a liability release. After Groshek submitted the job application, along with the signed disclosure and authorization form, Appellees requested and obtained a consumer report on him from a third party.

Shortly thereafter, Groshek filed a class-action suit against Appellees under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., seeking statutory and punitive damages for alleged violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2)(A).2 This section prohibits a prospective employer from procuring a consumer report for employment purposes unless certain procedures are followed: (i) a clear and conspicuous disclosure has been made in writing to the job applicant at any time before the report is procured, in a document that consists solely of the disclosure, that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes (commonly known as the " stand-alone disclosure requirement" ); and, (ii) the job applicant has authorized in writing the procurement of the report. See id. § 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i)-(ii).

In his complaint, Groshek alleged that Appellees violated § 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i). As the predicate for his claimed statutory and punitive damages, he alleged that this violation was willful. See id. § 1681n. Additionally, he alleged that, as a result of the violation of § 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i), Appellees failed to obtain a valid authorization from him before procuring a consumer report, in violation of § 1681b(b)(2)(A)(ii).

Appellees moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that Groshek lacked Article III standing because he did not suffer a concrete injury; Groshek responded that he suffered concrete informational and privacy injuries. The district court granted Appellees' motion. This appeal followed.

Article III of the Constitution limits our review to actual " Cases" and " Controversies" brought by litigants who demonstrate standing. The " irreducible constitutional minimum of standing" consists...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP