Magallon v. Robert Half International, Inc.
311 F.R.D. 625
D. Or.2015Background
- Plaintiff Magallon seeks class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 for FCRA claims against RHI.
- RHI uses consumer background reports from GIS to decide employment offers; reports are ordered late in the application process.
- Applicants must consent to background checks and RHI can use the report to determine eligibility.
- GIS flags reports green/yellow/red; yellow/red trigger pre-adverse action procedures under FCRA, including a 10-day window.
- RHI allegedly did not provide a pre-adverse action package or a copy of the report before final adverse decisions.
- Plaintiff alleges she was not given pre-adverse notice or a copy during legal review, and later received the report after the adverse decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FCRA pre-adverse action notice applies to class and timing is proper | Plaintiff argues notice must precede any adverse action and allow disputing/report access | Defendant contends policies were compliant and timing individualized | Yes, common questions exist; timing must allow meaningful dispute; class cert favored |
| Whether class definition should be narrowed to red/yellow flag not placeable | Broader class should cover all with red/yellow flags and not placeable | Class scope too broad; individual defenses predominate | Yes, narrowed to red/yellow flag not placeable to permit certification |
| Whether predominance and superiority are met given arbitration and SOL issues | Common questions predominate; arbitration defenses can be managed within class | Arbitration defenses require individualized analysis; SOL issues may bar some | Yes, certified with narrowed class; arbitration and limitations addressed in refinement |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (class certification requires common questions and representative adequacy)
- Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497 (9th Cir. 1992) (commonality and typicality principles for class actions)
- Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2001) (burden on plaintiff to show Rule 23 requirements are met; rigorous analysis required)
- Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) (predominance and manageability considerations in class actions)
- Goode v. LexisNexis Risk & Info. Analytics Grp., Inc., 848 F. Supp. 2d 532 (E.D. Pa. 2012) (pre-adverse action notice purposes and reasonable timing under FCRA)
- Moore v. Rite Aid Headquarters Corp., 33 F. Supp. 3d 569 (E.D. Pa. 2014) (timing and finality of adverse action under FCRA considerations)