## Facts

- Heather Haley worked for La Quinta Inns & Suites and was being considered for a promotion to assistant manager.
- La Quinta obtained an employment background report (a consumer report) about Haley from TalentWise, Inc., a consumer reporting agency.
- Haley alleged the report listed a dismissed robbery charge that was more than seven years old.
- Haley alleged the report listed a refusal-to-submit-to-a-breathalyzer charge twice with conflicting outcomes—one entry showed dismissal and another showed a conviction—although public records reflected dismissal.
- After La Quinta received the report, Haley was fired.
- Haley requested and received a copy of her report from TalentWise; she alleged the copy she received omitted the dismissed robbery charge but still contained the conflicting breathalyzer entries.
- Haley filed a putative class action asserting violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) based on TalentWise’s reporting and procedures, and also asserted a state-law negligence claim based on the same conduct.
- TalentWise moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and also sought to strike the proposed class definition at the pleading stage.

## Issues

1. Whether Haley plausibly stated FCRA claims based on (a) reporting obsolete adverse information, (b) failing to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy, and (c) failing to satisfy FCRA requirements for reporting public-record information for employment purposes.
2. Whether Haley plausibly alleged a willful FCRA violation sufficient to keep willfulness-based remedies in the case at the pleading stage.
3. Whether Haley’s state-law negligence claim could proceed alongside the FCRA claims.
4. Whether the court should strike class allegations based on disputes about the proposed class definition at the pleading stage.

## Decision

- The court granted in part and denied in part TalentWise’s motion to dismiss.
- The court denied dismissal of Haley’s FCRA claims under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681c(a), 1681e(b), and 1681k(a), concluding the alleged obsolete reporting and conflicting dispositions plausibly stated claims.
- The court permitted Haley’s allegations of willfulness to proceed at the pleading stage.
- The court dismissed Haley’s state-law negligence claim.
- The court denied TalentWise’s request to strike the class allegations and left class-definition questions for a later Rule 23 motion.
- The court denied Haley leave to file another amended complaint at that stage.

## Legal Principles

- Under the FCRA’s obsolescence limits (15 U.S.C. § 1681c(a)), a plaintiff can state a claim by alleging that a consumer reporting agency included statutorily time-barred adverse information in an employment background report.
- Under 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b), a plaintiff plausibly states a “maximum possible accuracy” claim by alleging (1) an inaccuracy or misleading statement in a consumer report and (2) that the agency failed to use reasonable procedures to assure accuracy; whether procedures are reasonable is commonly a fact question not resolved on the pleadings.
- Under 15 U.S.C. § 1681k(a), when a consumer reporting agency furnishes public-record information for employment purposes that may adversely affect a consumer, it must either provide contemporaneous notice to the consumer or maintain strict procedures to ensure the information is complete and up to date; alleged outdated items and conflicting dispositions can support a plausible claim that strict procedures were lacking.
- FCRA willfulness may be pled by alleging facts that, if proved, would show knowing or reckless disregard of statutory duties; a plaintiff need not prove willfulness to survive a motion to dismiss.
- A state-law negligence claim based on the same alleged reporting conduct may be dismissed where the claim does not stand as a separate, viable cause of action alongside the FCRA framework as pled.
- Motions to strike class allegations are generally disfavored at the pleading stage; disputes about class definition and certification are ordinarily addressed on a Rule 23 motion after development of the record.

## Conclusion

The court held that Haley’s allegations—reporting an obsolete dismissed charge and providing internally inconsistent criminal-charge dispositions in an employment background report—plausibly stated claims under FCRA §§ 1681c(a), 1681e(b), and 1681k(a), allowed willfulness allegations to remain, dismissed her parallel negligence claim, and declined to strike class allegations before Rule 23 briefing.


Haley v. TalentWise, Inc., 9 F. Supp. 3d 1188 (2014)