Jonathan Rosario claims that Starbucks Corp. denied him a job based on inaccurate results of a background check, without giving him a proper chance to correct those results. In doing so, he claims, Starbucks violated provisions of the FCRA.
In March 2016, Rosario applied for a job at Starbucks in Castle Rock, CO. The background check performed on him listed criminal felony and misdemeanor records from counties in Pennsylvania, some of which involved violent crime and drug-related charges.
Rosario claims that by the time he received the letter from Starbucks informing him that the results of his background check did not meet the company’s requirements, Starbucks had already removed him from consideration for employment.
Rosario says the criminal history that showed up in his Starbucks background check is inaccurate and false. He believes those entries resulted from identity theft, especially since he has never been to Pennsylvania.
Rosario challenged the inaccurate background check by following the dispute procedure of the consumer reporting agency that performed the background check for Starbucks. The errors were corrected, and a representative confirmed to Rosario that a corrected report had been forwarded to Starbucks.
Rosario then contacted Starbucks in an attempt to revive his job application, he says. However, the company declined to revisit its decision to deny him a job.
The law requires that before an adverse decision is made, the job applicant must get a copy of the report and be given a chance to dispute and correct its contents. By failing to give Rosario a meaningful opportunity to dispute the contents of his Starbucks background check, he claims, Starbucks violated the pre-adverse action notification requirements in the FCRA.
Rosario proposes to represent a nationwide plaintiff Class that would include U.S. persons who applied for a job at Starbucks and who were the subject of a Starbucks background check report on which the company based an adverse employment decision, but who did not receive a timely copy of that report or the FCRA summary of rights.
He seeks an award of actual, statutory and punitive damages for himself and the plaintiff Class and reimbursement of court costs and attorneys’ fees, all with pre- and post-judgment interest.
There is an interesting lesson for employers here: Employers may want to revisit their policies regarding keeping a job open while the selected candidate is disputing a background report. The FCRA does not require that jobs be kept open during a dispute. No one can predict what a judge or jury might decide, but either way it will be extremely costly for Starbucks to defend their actions. If this case is decided in plaintiff’s favor, employers will certainly want to revisit their dispute waiting policy.
CARCO can help keep you FCRA compliant. CARCO’s onboarding platform allows clients to be notified if a dispute has been opened based on the clients’ work flow and their decision on whether or not to keep the job open during the dispute.
Contact a CARCO Specialist at 1-866-557-5984 or click here for information on how CARCO’s onboarding platform can keep your company FCRA compliant!
Jonathan Rosario v. Starbucks Corp., Case No. 2:16-cv-01951, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.