Mattiaccio v. Dha Group, Inc.
21 F. Supp. 3d 15
D.D.C.2014Background
- Matt iaccio sues DHA Group and related defendants for defamation and three FCRA claims; Blitz is later added as a defendant, alleged to have conducted the background investigation.
- Plaintiff alleges Blitz, as outside counsel for DHA, performed a post-employment background check and prepared a report containing inaccuracies (e.g., a purported perjury conviction).
- DHA terminated Matt iaccio on May 30, 2012 based on the background report; the May 30 termination letter attaches Blitz’s preliminvestigation report.
- Plaintiff contends Blitz violated the FCRA by improperly obtaining and using his report, and by failing to provide required notices and rights.
- The Court treats Blitz’s motion as a motion to dismiss; it analyzes whether Blitz can be liable under the FCRA given the attorney-agent relationship with DHA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Blitz’s report qualifies as a consumer report under the FCRA | Mattiaccio argues the report is a consumer report not exempted by employment investigation carve. | Blitz contends the communications are exempt as part of an employer investigation into suspected misconduct. | Blitz not exempt at this stage; factual record insufficient to dismiss on this basis. |
| Whether the plaintiff authorized the background investigation | Plaintiff alleges no blanket authorization for post-employment investigation. | Defendant claims a broad authori zation covered pre- and post-employment checks. | Not dismissing on authorization; factual dispute remains re: the signed form. |
| Whether Blitz, as attorney-agent, can be liable under the FCRA | Blitz is not shielded by being attorney-agent; could be liable as user or CRA. | Attorney-agent relationship precludes independent FCRA liability; not a CRA or user independent of DHA. | Blitz is an attorney-agent; not independently liable under 1681b or 1681i(a)(1)(A). |
| Application of Weidman/Hartman and related agency principles to Blitz | Agency concept should expose Blitz to FCRA duties despite attorney-client relationship. | Attorney-agent relationship exempts Blitz from independent FCRA liability. | Balance favors attorney-agent exception; Blitz not liable under the FCRA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hartman v. Lisle Park District, 158 F. Supp. 2d 869 (N.D. Ill. 2001) (attorney-agent relationship can shield from independent FCRA liability)
- Weidman v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., 338 F. Supp. 2d 571 (E.D. Pa. 2004) (agent not liable under FCRA; reporting filtered by principal)
- Goode v. LexisNexis Risk and Information Analytics Group, Inc., 848 F. Supp. 2d 532 (E.D. Pa. 2012) (CRAs liable for adverse action; context distinguished by agency relationship)