Maiteki v. Marten Transport Ltd.
828 F.3d 1272
10th Cir.2016Background
- Maiteki worked as a truck driver for Marten Transport from March–December 2011; Marten reports driver records to HireRight (DAC).
- Marten reported code 938 ("Unsatisfactory Safety Record") after Maiteki left; Maiteki claimed the code was incorrect and disputed it with HireRight.
- HireRight notified Marten; Marten HR employee Ann Konsela reviewed the personnel file and HRIS entries, which included: an Illinois State Police Driver/Vehicle Examination Report and a company Written Warning for a July 16, 2011 speeding incident, and HRIS notes referring to SpeedGauge monitoring data and a "Serious Warning" entered Oct. 5, 2011.
- Marten no longer had the underlying SpeedGauge reports at the time of reinvestigation; Konsela confirmed the HRIS entry with fleet manager Wendy Sobotta, who had reviewed the SpeedGauge data earlier.
- Konsela concluded Code 938 was accurate (and that the Illinois incident alone would support it) and informed HireRight accordingly. Maiteki sued under the FCRA § 1681s-2(b)(1), claiming the reinvestigation was unreasonable and the response false. The district court granted summary judgment for Marten; Maiteki appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Marten's reinvestigation under FCRA § 1681s-2(b) was reasonable | Maiteki argues the investigation was perfunctory, failed to review underlying SpeedGauge records, and did not verify entries, so a factfinder could find it unreasonable | Marten contends it reviewed relevant records provided by the CRA, confirmed HRIS entries (including with the fleet manager), and reasonably relied on an Illinois police report and company records without exhaustive additional inquiry | Court held Marten's investigation was reasonable as a matter of law; summary judgment for Marten affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Llewellyn v. Allstate Home Loans, 711 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2013) (summary judgment standard for FCRA reinvestigation claims)
- Boggio v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 696 F.3d 611 (6th Cir. 2012) (furnisher must conduct a reasonable investigation)
- Seamans v. Temple Univ., 744 F.3d 853 (3d Cir. 2014) (reasonableness measured by what a prudent person would do under circumstances)
- Chiang v. Verizon New England Inc., 595 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2010) (scope of reinvestigation depends on information provided by CRA)
- Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2009) (furnisher may rely on its own records when notice gives no reason to doubt them)
- Westra v. Credit Control of Pinellas, 409 F.3d 825 (7th Cir. 2005) (summary judgment appropriate when reasonableness is beyond question)
- Johnson v. MBNA Am. Bank, NA, 357 F.3d 426 (4th Cir. 2004) (limits on relying solely on computer data without verifying underlying documents)