Haley v. TalentWise, Inc.
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46312
W.D. Wash.2014Background
- Plaintiff Heather Haley applied for promotion; employer La Quinta obtained a consumer report from TalentWise that allegedly contained inaccurate criminal history.
- Report purportedly included a dismissed robbery charge older than seven years and duplicated a refusal-to-submit-to-breathalyzer charge with inconsistent dispositions (both dismissed and convicted).
- La Quinta terminated Haley after receiving the report; Haley alleges La Quinta relied on the report in refusing rehiring.
- Haley requested a copy of the report; TalentWise’s copy removed the outdated dismissed robbery charge but left the inconsistent breathalyzer entries.
- Haley sued under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), asserting violations of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681c(a)(2),(5), 1681e(b), 1681k, and alleging willful and negligent violations; TalentWise moved to dismiss and to strike class definitions.
- The court granted in part and denied in part the motion: negligence claims dismissed for lack of alleged damages; remaining FCRA claims survived; class definitions will be addressed at Rule 23 stage; leave to amend denied as futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reporting a dismissed charge older than seven years violates 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(a)(2),(5) | Haley: dismissed arrest >7 years is "record of arrest"/"adverse" and prohibited | TalentWise: statute ambiguous; Minnesota law should control classification of record; charges part of same conviction record | Court: Held plausible that disclosure violated §1681c; dismissed charge is "record of arrest" and "adverse" information prohibited from reporting |
| Whether duplicative/inconsistent entries violate § 1681e(b) (accuracy) | Haley: report shows same charge twice with conflicting dispositions; reasonable procedures to ensure accuracy lacking | TalentWise: §1681e(b) not violated for mere mistakes; relies on out-of-circuit, non-precedential authority | Court: Allegations of incorrect and internally inconsistent reporting are sufficiently plausible to survive 12(b)(6); reasonableness of procedures is a factual/jury question |
| Whether TalentWise violated § 1681k (notice and up-to-date public records) | Haley: no notice given to consumer; report was not up to date and contained inconsistencies | TalentWise: argues report sections (e.g., DMV) are consistent with public records | Court: Plausible that TalentWise failed to notify and did not maintain strict procedures to ensure records were complete and current; survives motion to dismiss |
| Whether Haley pleaded willful violation under § 1681n | Haley: TalentWise knew or should have known (website guidance, prior lawsuits); removal of outdated item in later report suggests knowledge | TalentWise: disputed; argued reasonable interpretations exist | Court: Allegations support an inference of willfulness (knowledge or reckless disregard), so claim is plausible at pleading stage |
| Whether negligent FCRA claims (15 U.S.C. § 1681o) are viable | Haley: alleged negligent violations | TalentWise: damages required for negligence claim | Court: Dismissed negligence claims for failure to plead actual damages |
| Whether class definitions should be struck on 12(b)(6) motion | Haley: proposed class; sought leave to refine if needed | TalentWise: urged striking class allegations now | Court: Declined to decide class definitions on motion to dismiss; Rule 23 motion required |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (facial plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading requires more than labels and conclusions)
- Guimond v. Trans Union Credit Info. Co., 45 F.3d 1329 (9th Cir. 1995) (FCRA construed liberally for consumer protection; accuracy reasonableness is often a jury question)
- Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 (U.S. 2007) (definition of willful violation: knowing or reckless conduct)
- Robins v. Spokeo, Inc., 742 F.3d 409 (9th Cir. 2014) (no actual harm required for willful FCRA violations)
- Bateman v. Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc., 623 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 2010) (recklessness standard discussion)
- Serrano v. Sterling Testing Sys., 557 F. Supp. 2d 688 (E.D. Pa. 2008) (outdated arrest record is adverse information under §1681c)
- Smith v. HireRight Solutions, Inc., 711 F. Supp. 2d 426 (E.D. Pa. 2010) (duplicative reporting can plausibly show failure to follow reasonable procedures under §1681e(b))
- McDonald v. General Mills, Inc., 387 F. Supp. 24 (E.D. Cal. 1974) (class certification is decided under Rule 23, not via 12(b)(6))