85 F. Supp. 3d 1058
W.D. Mo.2015Background
- Plaintiffs Talita Miller and Crispin Rork filed a putative class action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) against Quest Diagnostics challenging its pre-employment consumer-report procedures.
- Count I alleges Quest’s disclosure form violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i) because the FCRA disclosure was not in a document consisting solely of the disclosure (it included state-law notices, a release provision, and administrative fields).
- Count II alleges Quest violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2)(A) by obtaining applicant authorization for consumer reports via electronic signature rather than a handwritten "written" signature.
- Quest moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Plaintiffs’ factual allegations are accepted as true at this stage.
- The court denied dismissal of Count I (sufficient pleading of a willful violation of the "solely" requirement) and granted dismissal of Count II (electronic authorization valid under the E‑Sign Act and FCRA).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Quest’s disclosure violated FCRA’s requirement that the disclosure be in a document consisting solely of the disclosure | The disclosure contained non‑disclosure material (state notices, release language, admin fields) so it did not consist solely of the disclosure and was a willful violation | The form is compliant; other courts have found similar combined documents permissible; plaintiffs fail to plead willfulness | Denied dismissal — complaint sufficiently alleges a willful violation of the "solely" requirement |
| Whether electronic authorization satisfies FCRA’s requirement that consumer authorize in writing | Electronic signature is not "writing" under FCRA; therefore authorization was invalid | Electronic signatures are valid under the E‑Sign Act and FTC guidance; plaintiffs are not E‑Sign Act "consumers" requiring extra disclosures | Granted dismissal — electronic authorization is valid and Quest’s electronic forms satisfy statutory requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Great Plains Trust Co. v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 492 F.3d 986 (8th Cir. 2007) (accept factual allegations as true for pleading)
- Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 (2007) (definition of willful violation under FCRA requires knowing or reckless disregard)
- Burghy v. Dayton Racquet Club, Inc., 695 F. Supp. 2d 689 (S.D. Ohio 2010) (analysis of conspicuousness and discussion of the FCRA’s "solely" requirement)