Syed v. M-I, LLC, No. 14-17186

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtWARDLAW, Circuit Judge
Citation846 F.3d 1034
Docket NumberNo. 14-17186
Decision Date20 January 2017
Parties Sarmad SYED, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M-I, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; PreCheck, Inc., a Texas Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.

846 F.3d 1034

Sarmad SYED, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
M-I, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; PreCheck, Inc., a Texas Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-17186

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted November 17, 2016, San Francisco, California
Filed January 20, 2017


OPINION

WARDLAW, Circuit Judge:

The modern information age has shined a spotlight on information privacy, and on the widespread use of consumer credit reports to collect information in violation of consumers' privacy rights. This case presents a question of first impression in the federal courts of appeals: whether a prospective employer may satisfy the Fair Credit Reporting Act's ("FCRA") disclosure requirements by providing a job applicant with a disclosure that "a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes" which simultaneously serves as a liability waiver for the prospective employer and others.1 See 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2)(A). We hold that a prospective employer violates Section 1681b(b)(2)(A) when it procures a job applicant's consumer report after including a liability waiver in the same document as the statutorily mandated disclosure. We also hold that, in light of the clear statutory language that the disclosure document must consist "solely" of the disclosure, a prospective employer's violation of the FCRA is "willful" when the employer includes terms in addition to the disclosure, such as the liability waiver here, before procuring a consumer report or causing one to be procured.

I.

A. Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Congress enacted the FCRA in 1970 in response to concerns about corporations' increasingly sophisticated use of consumers' personal information in making credit and other decisions. Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970, Pub. L. 91-508, § 602, 84 Stat. 1114, 1128. Specifically, Congress recognized the need to "ensure fair and accurate credit reporting, promote efficiency in the banking system, and protect consumer privacy." Safeco Ins. Co. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 52, 127 S.Ct. 2201, 167 L.Ed.2d 1045 (2007). Congress thus required the use of reasonable procedures in procuring and using a "consumer report," defined as

any written, oral, or other communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumer's credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living which is used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumer's eligibility for (A) credit or insurance to be used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes; (B) employment purposes; or (C) any other purpose authorized under [the statute].

15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d).

Congress amended the FCRA in 1996. Consumer Credit Reporting Reform Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-208, § 2403, 110 Stat. 3009-426, 3009-431. It recognized "the significant amount of inaccurate information that was being reported by consumer reporting agencies and the difficulties that

846 F.3d 1038

consumers faced getting such errors corrected." S. Rep. No. 108-166 at 5-6 (2003) (describing 1996 amendments). Congress was specifically concerned that prospective employers were obtaining and using consumer reports in a manner that violated job applicants' privacy rights. S. Rep. No. 104-185 at 35 (1995). The disclosure and authorization provision codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2)(A) was intended to address this concern by requiring the prospective employer to disclose that it may obtain the applicant's consumer report for employment purposes and providing the means by which the prospective employee might prevent the prospective employer from doing so — withholding of authorization. S. Rep. No. 104-185 at 35. This provision furthers Congress's overarching purposes of ensuring accurate credit reporting, promoting efficient error correction, and protecting privacy. See Safeco, 551 U.S. at 52, 127 S.Ct. 2201. Indeed, in addition to securing job applicants' privacy rights by enabling them to withhold authorization to obtain their consumer reports, the provision promotes error correction by providing applicants with an opportunity to warn a prospective employer of errors in the report before the employer decides against hiring the applicant on the basis of information contained in the report.2

Congress prohibited procurement of consumer reports unless certain specified procedures were followed:

(2) Disclosure to consumer
(A) In general
Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a person may not procure a consumer report, or cause a consumer report to be procured, for employment purposes with respect to any consumer, unless —
(i) a clear and conspicuous disclosure has been made in writing to the consumer at any time before the report is procured or caused to be procured, in a document that consists solely of the disclosure, that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes; and
(ii) the consumer has authorized in writing (which authorization may be made on the document referred to in clause (i)) the procurement of the report by that person.

15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2)(A). Congress amended the statute in 1998 to add language providing that the authorization may be made on the same document as the disclosure. Consumer Reporting Employment Clarification Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-347, § 2, 112 Stat. 3208, 3208.

The FCRA provides a private right of action against those who violate its statutory requirements in procuring and using consumer reports. The affected consumer is entitled to actual damages for a negligent violation. 15 U.S.C. § 1681o. For a willful violation, however, a consumer may recover statutory damages ranging from $100 to $1,000, punitive damages, and attorney's fees and costs. 15 U.S.C. § 1681n.

B. Syed's Lawsuit Against M-I.

Syed applied for a job with M-I in 2011. M-I provided Syed with a document labeled "Pre-employment Disclosure Release." See Appendix A. The Disclosure Release informed Syed that his credit history and other information could be collected and used as a basis for the employment

846 F.3d 1039

decision, authorized M-I to procure Syed's consumer report, and stipulated that, by signing the document, Syed was waiving his rights to sue M-I and its agents for violations of the FCRA. Syed's signature served simultaneously as an authorization for M-I to procure his consumer report, and as a broad release of liability.

The liability waiver at the heart of the present dispute reads as follows:

I understand the information obtained will be used as one basis for employment or denial of employment. I hereby discharge, release and indemnify prospective employer, PreCheck, Inc., their agents, servants and employees, and all parties that rely on this release and/or the information obtained with this release from any and all liability and claims arising by reason of the use of this release and dissemination of information that is false and untrue if obtained by a third party without verification.

Appendix A.

Syed alleges that the Disclosure Release failed to satisfy the disclosure requirements mandated by 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2)(A). Syed does not contend that M-I's form contained too little information. Instead, he argues that it contained too much. Specifically, he alleges that M-I's inclusion of the liability waiver violated the statutory requirement that the disclosure document consist "solely" of the disclosure. See § 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i). Syed alleges that he realized M-I had violated the statute when, upon reviewing his personnel file, he noticed that M-I had procured his consumer report, in spite of the allegedly deficient disclosure with which it had provided him. He alleges that he filed the complaint within two years of reviewing his file.

On May 19, 2014, Syed filed a putative class action in district court on behalf of himself and any person whose consumer report was obtained by M-I after receiving a disclosure in violation of Section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i) within the two-year limitations period. He sought statutory damages pursuant to Section 1681n(a)(1)(A), punitive damages pursuant to Section 1681n(a)(2), and attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Section 1681n(a)(3).3 Syed did not seek actual damages, which would have required proof of actual harm. See Crabill v. Trans Union, L.L.C., 259 F.3d 662, 664 (7th Cir. 2001) (citing cases).

The original complaint alleged that M-I's statutory violation had been "willful," the predicate for Syed's claimed statutory and punitive damages. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681n; see also Safeco, 551 U.S. at 53, 127 S.Ct. 2201. On August 28, 2014, the district court dismissed Syed's complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. It held that the allegation of willfulness consisted only of "labels and conclusions." See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007).

Syed filed his First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on September 2, 2014. The FAC sets forth the same factual and legal allegations as did the original complaint. However, it also includes citations to Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") staff opinion letters and district court opinions that Syed asserts support his position that M-I "knew or should have known about its legal obligations under the FCRA," thus rendering its statutory violation willful.

846 F.3d 1040

On October 23, 2014, the district court again dismissed Syed's FAC for failure to state a claim, this time without leave to amend. The district court reasoned that Syed had still not sufficiently pleaded willfulness. The court concluded that the FTC letters could not have "warned [M-I] away from the view it took" because they were informal staff opinions, not authoritative guidance. See Safeco, 551 U.S. at 70, 70 n.19, 127 S.Ct. 2201. Similarly, the court found that the judicial opinions cited by Syed did not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 practice notes
  • Barnum v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, No.: 2:16-cv-2866-RFB-NJK
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Nevada
    • May 17, 2017
    ...Nevada 89123 Tel: (702) 880-5554 Fax: (702) 385-5518 dkrieger@hainesandkrieger.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs--------Footnotes: 1. 846 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. Jan. 20, 2017) ("Syed I"), as amended, --- F.3d ----, 2017 WL 1050586 (9th Cir. Mar. 20, 2017) ("Syed II"). 2. Syed II, 2017 WL 1050586, a......
  • Mamisay v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., Case No. 16-cv-05684-YGR
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • March 21, 2017
    ...such violations cause, thereby articulating a 'chain[ ] of causation that will give rise to a case or controversy.'" Syed v. M-I, LLC, 846 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1549). In Spokeo, the Court held that the reporting of an incorrect zip code could not co......
  • Labertew v. Langemeier, No. 14-15879
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • January 20, 2017
    ...operate through Rule 69 to discharge the insurers under Arizona procedural law.The insurers would also have us import Arizona law through 846 F.3d 1034Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64, because it expressly imports state law on garnishment.27 That argument is mistaken, because Rule 64 prov......
  • Bercut v. Michaels Stores Inc., Case No. 17-cv-01830-PJH
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • June 29, 2017
    ...of removal cites to the January 20, 2017 decision of the Ninth Circuit in Syed ("Syed I"). See Notice of Removal ¶ 10 (citing Syed I, 846 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2017)). However, on March 20, 2017, Syed I was withdrawn and superseded upon the denial of rehearing. See Syed v. M-I, LLC, 853 F.3d ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 cases
  • Barnum v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, No.: 2:16-cv-2866-RFB-NJK
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Nevada
    • May 17, 2017
    ...Nevada 89123 Tel: (702) 880-5554 Fax: (702) 385-5518 dkrieger@hainesandkrieger.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs--------Footnotes: 1. 846 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. Jan. 20, 2017) ("Syed I"), as amended, --- F.3d ----, 2017 WL 1050586 (9th Cir. Mar. 20, 2017) ("Syed II"). 2. Syed II, 2017 WL 1050586, a......
  • Mamisay v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., Case No. 16-cv-05684-YGR
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • March 21, 2017
    ...such violations cause, thereby articulating a 'chain[ ] of causation that will give rise to a case or controversy.'" Syed v. M-I, LLC, 846 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1549). In Spokeo, the Court held that the reporting of an incorrect zip code could not co......
  • Labertew v. Langemeier, No. 14-15879
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • January 20, 2017
    ...operate through Rule 69 to discharge the insurers under Arizona procedural law.The insurers would also have us import Arizona law through 846 F.3d 1034Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64, because it expressly imports state law on garnishment.27 That argument is mistaken, because Rule 64 prov......
  • Bercut v. Michaels Stores Inc., Case No. 17-cv-01830-PJH
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • June 29, 2017
    ...of removal cites to the January 20, 2017 decision of the Ninth Circuit in Syed ("Syed I"). See Notice of Removal ¶ 10 (citing Syed I, 846 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2017)). However, on March 20, 2017, Syed I was withdrawn and superseded upon the denial of rehearing. See Syed v. M-I, LLC, 853 F.3d ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT