Williams v. First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc.

• Decision Date: 14 October 2015
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:13cv222–MW/GRJ
• Citation: 155 F.Supp.3d 1233
• Parties: Richard Alexander Williams, Plaintiff, v. First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc., f/k/a a LexisNexis Screening Solutions, Inc., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida

155 F.Supp.3d 1233

Richard Alexander Williams, Plaintiff,

v.First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc., f/k/a a LexisNexis Screening Solutions, Inc., Defendant.

Case No. 1:13cv222–MW/GRJ

United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Gainesville Division .

Signed October 14, 2015

Barry Seth Balmuth, Barry S. Balmuth PA, West Palm Beach, FL, Michael Owen Massey, Massey & Duffy PLLC, Gainesville, FL, for Plaintiff.

Frederick Thomas Smith, Megan Hall Poonolly, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Atlanta, GA, Joseph S. Turner, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Chicago, IL, Leonard J. Dietzen, Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell PA, Tallahassee, FL, for Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART CROSS–MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Mark E. Walker

, United States District Judge

Is Richard Williams incredibly unlucky, or is First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions not very good at performing public records searches on individuals with common names? This case concerns a pair of inaccurate background reports that may have cost Plaintiff Richard Alexander Williams (“Williams”) two different jobs. Williams claims that Defendant First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc. (“First Advantage”)—a credit reporting agency (“CRA”) that contracts with employers to provide a variety of background reports on potential employees—mistakenly reported criminal records for a different person, Ricky Williams, on two separate occasions, leading two different employers to deny him employment. ECF No. 71, at 1–2. Williams originally brought suit against the two employers, Rent–A–Center East, Inc. (“Rent–A–Center”) and Winn–Dixie Stores, Inc. (“Winn–Dixie”), in addition to First Advantage, but later voluntarily dismissed his claims against them. ECF Nos. 41, 43. His claims against First Advantage are brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.

Each party has filed a motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 69 (Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment); ECF No. 71 (Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment), and responses in opposition thereto, ECF No. 72 (Defendant's Opposition); ECF No. 73 (Plaintiff's Opposition). For the reasons set forth below, this Court grants in part and denies in part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and denies Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.

STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate when “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a)

. A dispute is “genuine” if the record is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). “Material” facts are those that might affect the outcome of the case under the governing substantive law. Id.

While this Court must review the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences in its favor, Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986)

, “[i]nferences based upon speculation are not reasonable,” Solliday v. Fed. Officers, 413 Fed.Appx. 206, 207 (11th Cir.2011). Failure by the nonmoving party to prove an essential element of its case, for which it has the burden of proof at trial, entitles the moving party to summary judgment. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).

DISCUSSION

I. BACKGROUND

Williams applied for a job at a Rent–A–Center store in Chiefland, Florida in February of 2012. ECF No. 70–8, at 11. As part of the application process, Williams had to agree to submit to a background check. Id. Rent–A–Center had a contract with Lexis Nexis Screening Solutions, Inc. (“Lexis Nexis”)—since acquired by First Advantage, ECF No. 71–1, at 1–2—to perform such background checks and to conduct “adjudications” on job applicants. Id. at 4.

First Advantage—in reality, Lexis Nexis, but for the sake of clarity this Court will refer to both entities as First Advantage—performed a background check on Williams. Id. As part of its background check, First Advantage searched a database of criminal records that it maintains called the National Criminal File (“NCrF”). ECF No. 70–2, at 9, 14. First Advantage “matched” Williams with a number of criminal records from Palm Beach County, Florida based on his name,¹ date of birth, state of residence, and sex. Id. at 14; ECF No. 70–4, at 9. First Advantage “confirmed” the match by performing additional research of online court records in Palm Beach County; the confirmation, however, did not involve the matching of any additional identifiers, such as Social Security number or address. ECF No. 70–4, at 8–9. First Advantage only included two of these records in its report to Rent–A–Center, as the remainder were older than seven years. Id. at 10. The two records it did include concerned the 2009 arrest and subsequent issuance of a bench warrant for a “Ricky Williams” (“Ricky 1”) for selling cocaine in Palm Beach County. ECF No. 71–19, at 4.

First Advantage then “adjudicated” Williams's application—that is, it considered the information compiled on Williams and, using criteria set out by Rent–A–Center, made a determination of whether to label Williams as “ineligible” for the position to which he had applied. ECF No. 70–2, at 5–6, 14. Williams was adjudicated ineligible based on the criminal records for Ricky 1. Id. at 14.

On February 28, 2012, First Advantage sent the background report on Williams (including the adjudication result) to Rent–A–Center electronically. ECF No. 71–1, at 5. At around that time,² First Advantage sent two notices to Williams via U.S. Mail: a notice that it was reporting public record information to Rent–A–Center, ECF No. 71–12, and a notice (sent on behalf of Rent–A–Center) that it might not hire Williams based on information in his background report, ECF No. 71–11.³ Williams received these notices at the same time in March, ECF No. 70–8, at 13.

Upon receiving the notices,⁴ Williams contacted Rent–A–Center, who referred him to First Advantage. ECF No. 70–8, at 12. First Advantage then reinvestigated the background report. ECF No. 70–4, at 11. As part of its reinvestigation, First Advantage obtained hard copies of the court records pertaining to Ricky 1's arrest; because First Advantage could “not match another identifier” in those records to Williams, the records were removed from his file. ECF No. 70–6, at 3. First Advantage's reinvestigation was completed on March 12, 2012, id. and Williams was sent notice that his background report had been revised, together with a copy of the revised report, on March 14, ECF No. 70–8, at 14. Unfortunately, it appears it was too late for Williams: after receiving the revised report, Williams was told by Rent–A–Center that it had already hired someone else for the position. Id. at 15.

Lexis Nexis became part of First Advantage in early 2013, ECF No. 71–1, at 1–2, but the change of corporate identity did not improve its accuracy rate with respect to Williams. In a turn of events that understandably caused Williams to ask “[h]ow is this coming up once again?” ECF No. 70–8, at 19, First Advantage matched Williams with different criminal records for a Ricky Williams⁵ (“Ricky 2”) while compiling a background report in connection with Williams's April 2013 application for a position at a Winn–Dixie in Gainesville, id. at 16–18. This time the records related to a burglary and an aggravated battery on a pregnant woman that took place in Broward County, Florida in 2002. ECF No. 71–16, at 6. First Advantage again matched these records to Williams using a search of the NCrF based on his name and date of birth, ECF No. 70–4, at 16–17, but it did not follow up with an online search of court records from Broward County, id. at 17; instead, First Advantage conducted a supplemental search using the Florida Department of Corrections (“FDOC”) website that “confirmed” the match between Williams and Ricky 2, ECF No. 70–3, at 3. Once again, the confirmation did not involve matching any identifiers besides Williams's name and date of birth with the criminal records. Id.

First Advantage, using criteria prescribed by Winn–Dixie, adjudicated Williams as ineligible for the position to which he had applied. ECF No. 70–2, at 21. First Advantage then sent the background report (including the adjudication result) to Winn–Dixie electronically on April 25, 2013, ECF No. 71–1, at 13–14, and–at around the same time,⁶ but via U.S. Mail–sent Williams a pre-adverse action notice on behalf of Winn–Dixie and another notice that it was reporting public record information, ECF Nos. 71–16, 71–17.

Williams again disputed the criminal records in the report, ECF No. 70–8, at 18–19, and First Advantage again reinvestigated, ECF No. 70–6, at 4. After obtaining the court records relating to Ricky 2's crimes, ECF No. 70–7, at 12, First Advantage determined that Ricky 2 had a different Social Security number than Williams, and removed the criminal records from Williams's report, ECF No. 70–6, at 4. Williams was sent a revised background report on May 28, 2013. Again, however, it appears that it was too late—Williams was informed by the Winn–Dixie store to which he had applied that someone had already been hired for the position.⁷ ECF No. 70–8, at 21.

Williams claims that First Advantage's actions in connection with these two background reports violated the FCRA in four ways: first, he claims that First Advantage failed to “follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information” contained in its reports in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b)

(Count I of the Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 30); second, he claims that First Advantage reinserted previously deleted information into its report for Winn–Dixie without following proper procedures, thus violating 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(5) (Count II); third, he claims that First Advantage failed to issue pre-adverse...