According to the complaint, Rite Aid violated the FCRA by allegedly failing to allow job applicants to challenge inaccurate or misleading reports after they were rejected for employment. The Defendant claims that the case should be dismissed because the Plaintiff, Kyra Moore, already settled claims with the background screening company.
Prior to applying for a job at Rite Aid, Moore was employed by CVS from 2006 to 2010. She signed a statement and was dismissed from her employment with CVS when a loss prevention officer confronted Moore about missing store stock.
In 2011, Moore applied for a store supervisor position at Rite Aid, which subjected her to a background screening by Lexus Nexus. Moore contends she was disqualified from employment at Rite Aid in April 2011 because of her signed statement regarding the alleged theft at CVS. However, according to Moore, a copy of that statement was not provided to her along with Rite Aid’s adverse action notice.
Rite Aid argues that in her complaint, Moore alleges that the background screening company acted as Rite Aid’s “agent” for purposes of the FCRA. Since Moore settled claims with the background screening company, any claims arising from the acts of Rite Aid’s agent, releases the company from alleged FCRA violations.
Rite Aid says Moore is now trying to “milk her claims for maximum personal benefit,” pointing to the fact that in 2013 Moore already filed two class actions and an EEOC proceeding.
Moore v. Rite Aid Hdqtrs Corp. et al., case number 2:13-cv-01515, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.