2017 Ohio 8836
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- In 2014–2015 Deanna Smith and Harmoni Sauder (employees/applicants) sued The Ohio State University under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), alleging OSU's background-check disclosure forms contained extraneous language and an improper liability release.
- Plaintiffs sued individually and sought class status; suit was removed to federal court in 2015 and remanded to the Ohio Court of Claims after the federal court found no Article III injury-in-fact and remanded under 28 U.S.C. §1447(c).
- OSU moved to dismiss in the Court of Claims on the ground plaintiffs lacked standing because they alleged no concrete injury from the FCRA violations.
- Plaintiffs argued the FCRA itself conferred "statutory standing" to sue for procedural violations even without an injury-in-fact.
- The Court of Claims dismissed for lack of standing; the Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Ohio common-law standing (injury-in-fact, causation, redressability) governs unless a statute clearly intends to supplant it, and Congress did not do so in the FCRA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs have standing in Ohio state court to sue under FCRA absent a concrete injury-in-fact | FCRA creates statutory standing: "any consumer" may sue for failures to comply with FCRA requirements, so no separate injury-in-fact required | Ohio courts require traditional/common-law standing (injury, causation, redressability); plaintiffs pleaded no injury-in-fact | No standing: Ohio common-law standing controls; FCRA did not clearly abrogate those requirements |
| Whether Ohio should treat federal statutory causes of action differently when assessing standing | Plaintiffs: federal statute’s cause of action should supply standing in Ohio courts | OSU: allowing Congress to displace Ohio standing doctrine is improper; Ohio law determines standing in Ohio courts | Court refused to extend Ohio "statutory standing" exception to federal statutes in state courts |
| Whether Spokeo alters Ohio statutory-standing analysis | Plaintiffs: rely on statutory grant; argue Spokeo permits statutory harms to confer standing | OSU: Spokeo emphasizes need for concrete, particularized injury even for statutory violations | Court found Spokeo instructive and declined to permit a federal statute to override Ohio standing norms |
| Whether the Court of Claims had jurisdiction absent a justiciable controversy | Plaintiffs: statutory right to sue creates justiciable controversy | OSU: standing is a jurisdictional element; without injury the matter is not justiciable | Court: standing is jurisdictional; absent cognizable injury, Court of Claims lacks power to decide merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (constitutional standing requires injury, causation, redressability)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (statutory violations must still produce a concrete, particularized injury to satisfy Article III)
- ProgressOhio.org, Inc. v. JobsOhio, 139 Ohio St.3d 520 (2014) (Ohio recognizes common-law standing and that statutory standing requires a clear legislative intent to abrogate those requirements)
- Fed. Home Loan Mtge. Corp. v. Schwartzwald, 134 Ohio St.3d 13 (2012) (standing is jurisdictional in Ohio)
- Moore v. Middletown, 133 Ohio St.3d 55 (2012) (standing depends on nature and source of claim; requires injury-in-fact absent clear statutory intent)
- Middletown v. Ferguson, 25 Ohio St.3d 71 (1986) (recognition that statutes may confer standing, origin of Ohio "statutory standing" concept)
- State ex rel. Walgate v. Kasich, 147 Ohio St.3d 1 (2016) (noting injury-in-fact requirement parallels Article III test in Ohio)