Gilberg v. Cal. Check Cashing Stores, LLC, 17-16263
Citation | 913 F.3d 1169 |
Decision Date | 29 January 2019 |
Docket Number | No. 17-16263,17-16263 |
Parties | Desiree GILBERG, on Behalf of Herself, all Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA CHECK CASHING STORES, LLC, a California Corporation; CheckSmart Financial, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
H. Scott W. Leviant (argued), Thomas Segal, and Shaun Setareh, Setareh Law Group, Beverly Hills, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Timothy W. Snider (argued) and Chrystal S. Chase, Stoel Rives LLP, Portland, Oregon; Bryan L. Hawkins, Stoel Rives LLP, Sacramento, California; for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Raymond C. Fisher and Milan D. Smith, Jr., Circuit Judges, and Lawrence L. Piersol, District Judge.*
The widespread use of credit reports and background checks led Congress to pass the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to protect consumers’ privacy rights. FCRA requires employers who obtain a consumer report on a job applicant to provide the applicant with a "clear and conspicuous disclosure" that they may obtain such a report (the "clear and conspicuous requirement") "in a document that consists solely of the disclosure" (the "standalone document requirement") before procuring the report. 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i). This appeal requires us to decide two questions: (1) whether a prospective employer may satisfy FCRA’s standalone document requirement by providing job applicants with a disclosure containing extraneous information in the form of various state disclosure requirements, and (2) whether the specific disclosure provided by the employer in this case satisfied the clear and conspicuous requirement.
We held in Syed v. M-I, LLC , 853 F.3d 492 (9th Cir. 2017), that FCRA contains "clear statutory language that the disclosure document must consist ‘solely’ of the disclosure." Id . at 496. Consistent with Syed , we now hold that a prospective employer violates FCRA’s standalone document requirement by including extraneous information relating to various state disclosure requirements in that disclosure. We also hold that the disclosure at issue here is conspicuous but not clear. Accordingly, we affirm in part, vacate in part and remand.1
In the process of applying for employment with CheckSmart Financial, LLC, Desiree Gilberg completed a three-page form containing an employment application, a math screening and an employment history verification. Two weeks later, Gilberg signed a separate form, entitled "Disclosure Regarding Background Investigation," that is the subject of this litigation. A copy of the disclosure is appended to this opinion. The form appears to have been printed in Arial Narrow, size 8 font.
Because the legal sufficiency of the FCRA disclosure provided to Gilberg is in question, we include the full text of the disclosure:
After receiving Gilberg’s signed disclosure form, CheckSmart obtained a criminal background report, which confirmed that Gilberg did not have a criminal record. CheckSmart did not obtain a credit report. CheckSmart hired Gilberg, who worked for CheckSmart for five months before voluntarily terminating her employment.
Gilberg then brought this putative class action against CheckSmart, alleging two claims relevant here: (1) failure to make a proper FCRA disclosure and (2) failure to make a proper disclosure under California’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA).
FCRA prohibits an employer from obtaining an applicant’s consumer report without first providing the applicant with a standalone, clear and conspicuous disclosure of its intention to do so and without obtaining the applicant’s consent:
15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2)(A) (emphasis added).
California imposes its own FCRA-like disclosure requirements. See Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1785.20(5)(a), 1786.16(a)(2)(B). Under ICRAA:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nunley v. Cardinal Logistics Mgmt. Corp.
...Hallmark Cards, 599 F.3d 894, 901 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Booker, 375 F.3d 508, 514 (7th Cir. 2004)). The Ninth Circuit in Gilberg, Luna, and Fred Meyer did not discuss Article III standing; each concerned the scope of the FCRA's standalone disclosure requirement. See Luna......
-
Rodriguez v. U.S. Healthworks, Inc.
...and conspicuous disclosure of its intention to do so and without obtaining the applicant's consent." Gilberg v. Cal. Check Cashing Stores, LLC , 913 F.3d 1169, 1173 (9th Cir. 2019). Plaintiff's second cause of action concerns a violation of FCRA §§ 1681d and/or 1681g(c). FCRA § 1681d requir......
-
Snell v. G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc.
...and experience. Id. ¶ 4. Snell now claims that the disclosure form he signed is analogous to the ones in Gilberg v. California Check Cashing Stores, LLC , 913 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2019), and Syed v. M-I, LLC , 853 F.3d 492, 500 (9th Cir.) , which the Ninth Circuit found to be in violation o......
-
Bebault v. DMG Mori USA, Inc.
...extraneous information relating to various state disclosure requirements in that disclosure." Gilberg v. California Check Cashing Stores, LLC, 913 F.3d 1169, 1171 (9th Cir. 2019); see also Walker, 953 F.3d at 1088 ("In light of Gilberg, a disclosure form violates the FCRA's standalone requi......