Long v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth.
903 F.3d 312
| 3rd Cir. | 2018Background
- Three plaintiffs with prior drug convictions applied to SEPTA for vehicle-operator jobs, completed disclosure forms, and later received job offers or start information.
- SEPTA denied employment after obtaining background checks (consumer reports), but did not provide plaintiffs with copies of those reports or the FCRA pre-adverse-action rights notice required by 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3)(A).
- Plaintiffs filed a putative class action alleging FCRA violations (failure to provide reports and failure to provide rights notices); SEPTA moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing.
- The district court dismissed the complaint, characterizing the FCRA failures as bare procedural violations and noting plaintiffs did not allege inaccuracy in the reports.
- The Third Circuit reviewed de novo, treating SEPTA’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion as a facial attack and accepting plaintiffs’ allegations as true for standing purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to provide a copy of the consumer report before adverse action is an Article III injury | Failure deprived plaintiffs of the opportunity to review, dispute, or contextualize the report—an injury Congress intended to protect | No concrete injury because reports were accurate and plaintiffs had disclosed convictions anyway | Held: Plaintiffs have standing on this claim; statutory right to pre-adverse report can constitute a concrete injury |
| Whether failure to provide the required FCRA rights notice before adverse action is an Article III injury | Lack of notice increased risk that plaintiffs (or class members) would lose rights or fail to sue timely | No concrete injury: plaintiffs learned their rights and sued within the limitations period, so no actual harm | Held: Plaintiffs lack standing on this claim; failure to give the rights notice was a bare procedural violation without concrete harm |
Key Cases Cited
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (sets the modern Article III standing test for statutory, intangible harms: injury must be concrete and particularized; congressional judgment and historical analogues inform concreteness)
- In re Horizon Healthcare Servs. Inc. Data Breach Litig., 846 F.3d 625 (3d Cir. 2017) (FCRA and data-privacy statutory violations can be concrete injuries; Congress may elevate intangible harms)
- In re Google Inc. Cookie Placement Consumer Privacy Litig., 806 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 2015) (privacy/statutory-right violations can confer standing absent traditional economic loss)
- Nickelodeon Consumer Privacy Litig., 827 F.3d 262 (3d Cir. 2016) (illegal disclosure of protected information constitutes concrete injury)
- Susinno v. Work Out World Inc., 862 F.3d 346 (3d Cir. 2017) (statutory harms that mirror historical privacy torts can be concrete even if intangible)