Moore v. Rite Aid HDQTRS Corp.
33 F. Supp. 3d 569
E.D. Pa.2014Background
- Rite Aid hired LexisNexis to conduct employment background checks and adjudicate applicants for new positions.
- LexisNexis provided three services: background checks, adjudication, and notice letters compliant with FCRA requirements.
- Applicants receive an initial notice after LexisNexis adjudication; the notice invites dispute within five days and may include a completed Esteem background report.
- Esteem database reports include theft-related incidents; participation requires employer reporting of thefts under Rules of Participation.
- Plaintiff Kyra Moore applied for a Rite Aid store-supervisor position; she allegedly disputed a LexisNexis report but was not offered employment; LexisNexis later revised the report but Rite Aid did not offer the job.
- The court granted in part Rite Aid’s 12(b)(6) motion, allowing amendment of certain claims while dismissing others with/without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pre-adverse action notice was properly timed | Moore's complaint alleges LexisNexis adjudications were adverse actions. | Rite Aid argues timing and lack of plausible claim for real opportunity to contest. | Pre-adverse action claim dismissed without prejudice for lack of plausible timing. |
| Whether Rite Aid failed to provide a full copy of the consumer report | Esteem report lacked a copy of the VAS. | Goode allows reporting of information provided by CRA; VAS not provided to Rite Aid, so no claim. | Claim dismissed with prejudice. |
| Whether willful noncompliance and damages are viable claims | Willful noncompliance entitles statutory and punitive damages. | Based on dismissal of pre-adverse action claim, damages claims fail. | Damages claims dismissed without prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goode v. LexisNexis Risk & Info. Analytics Grp., Inc., 848 F. Supp. 2d 532 (E.D. Pa. 2012) (discusses pre-adverse action and LexisNexis role in adjudications)
- Obabueki v. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp., 145 F. Supp. 2d 371 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (timing of adverse action under § 1681b(b)(3))
- Johnson v. ADP Screening & Selection Servs., Inc., 768 F. Supp. 2d 979 (D. Minn. 2011) (adverse action timing in employment context)
- Burghy v. Dayton Racquet Club, Inc., 695 F. Supp. 2d 689 (S.D. Ohio 2010) (adverse action occurs when decision is communicated or takes effect)
- Adams v. Nat’l Eng’g Serv. Corp., 620 F. Supp. 2d 319 (D. Conn. 2009) (adverse action defined for FCRA § 1681a(k)(1)(B)(ii))