Christopher Twumasi-Ankrah v. Checkr, Inc.
954 F.3d 938
6th Cir.2020Background
- Plaintiff Christopher Twumasi-Ankrah, an Uber driver, was terminated after Checkr, a consumer reporting agency (CRA), provided Uber with an abstract from the Ohio BMV listing three "accidents."
- Checkr forwarded the BMV entries without further investigation, despite knowing the BMV records list all accidents regardless of fault.
- Twumasi-Ankrah obtained records showing two of the three accidents were not his fault (a not-guilty adjudication and a police report treating him as a hit-and-run victim) and sent them to Checkr, which refused to amend or supplement the report.
- He sued under 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b), alleging Checkr failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure "maximum possible accuracy" and that the report was misleading and caused his firing.
- The district court dismissed, applying a narrow "technical accuracy" standard (requiring literally false statements).
- The Sixth Circuit reversed: it rejected the technical-accuracy standard, adopted an "inaccurate or misleading" standard (patently incorrect or misleading to an extent likely to harm), and held Twumasi-Ankrah plausibly alleged a § 1681e(b) claim; case remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard for "inaccuracy" under § 1681e(b) | "Inaccurate" includes information that is misleading or incomplete and likely to cause adverse effect | Sixth Circuit unpublished decisions compel a "technical accuracy" (literally false) standard | Court adopts an "inaccurate or misleading" standard: either patently incorrect or misleading to such an extent it could be expected to have an adverse effect |
| Application to facts: did Checkr report misleading information? | Checkr reported accidents without noting BMV records do not allocate fault and ignored evidence disproving fault for two accidents | Report listed accidents factually; ‘‘accident’’ is not synonymous with fault and report separated ‘‘violations’’ | Court finds plaintiff plausibly alleged the report was misleading and could have harmed his employment prospects (survives Rule 12(b)(6)) |
| Precedential effect of unpublished Dickens/Turner decisions | Plaintiff urged adoption of the broader misleading standard; not asking expressly to overrule Dickens/Turner | Checkr argued Dickens/Turner establish binding circuit precedent requiring technical accuracy | Unpublished decisions are not binding; court corrects earlier unpublished precedent and declines to follow Dickens/Turner here |
| Causation and other defenses (e.g., employer motives, reasonableness of procedures) | Report caused Uber to assume fault and fired him; Checkr’s lack of verification was unreasonable | Uber may have relied on other driving-record items; causation and reasonableness not plausibly shown | Court held causation and other defenses are fact questions inappropriate to resolve on motion to dismiss; remanded for district court to consider remaining defenses and claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Dalton v. Capital Associated Indus., Inc., 257 F.3d 409 (4th Cir. 2001) (adopting an "inaccurate or misleading" standard where omission can make otherwise correct information materially misleading)
- Boggio v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 696 F.3d 611 (6th Cir. 2012) (interpreting "incomplete or inaccurate" reporting by furnishers to include materially misleading presentations)
- Cortez v. Trans Union, LLC, 617 F.3d 688 (3d Cir. 2010) (distinguishing mere technical accuracy from the statute's "maximum possible accuracy" requirement)
- Sepulvado v. CSC Credit Servs., Inc., 158 F.3d 890 (5th Cir. 1998) (finding reports can be misleading and thus inaccurate under the FCRA)
- Pinner v. Schmidt, 805 F.2d 1258 (5th Cir. 1986) (example where omission rendered a technically accurate report misleading)
- Koropoulos v. Credit Bureau, Inc., 734 F.2d 37 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (CRA liability where reporting is misleading)
- Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876 (9th Cir. 2010) (rejecting a narrow technical-accuracy reading)
- Cahlin v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 936 F.2d 1151 (11th Cir. 1991) (declining to adopt a rigid technical-accuracy approach)
- Beaudry v. TeleCheck Servs., Inc., 579 F.3d 702 (6th Cir. 2009) (procedural standards for § 1681 claims and Rule 12(b)(6) review)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard: complaint must state a plausible claim to survive dismissal)