## Facts

- A minor applicant sought employment with Robley Hats, Inc., which required a pre-employment polygraph administered by Lincoln Zonn.
- The applicant voluntarily submitted to the examination after being told it was Robley’s customary practice.
- Robley informed the applicant he “did not pass” and would not be hired.
- The applicant later worked for Arthur Andersen & Co. until being discharged after Andersen reviewed a consumer credit file maintained by Retail Credit Company that allegedly included adverse information from the polygraph (including past marijuana use).
- The applicant went to Retail Credit’s headquarters and confirmed the file contained information allegedly obtained from the polygraph.
- The applicant sued Retail Credit, Robley, and Zonn, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and state-law claims for invasion of privacy, libel, and slander.

## Issues

1. Whether an employer and a polygraph examiner involved in a single hiring decision fall within the FCRA’s regulated categories (consumer reporting agencies or regulated users).
2. Whether polygraph results obtained for an employer’s internal hiring process constitute a “consumer report” triggering FCRA duties for the employer or examiner.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment to Robley and Zonn on the FCRA claims.
- The court held the FCRA was not applicable to Robley or Zonn on the facts alleged because the Act’s requirements target consumer reporting agencies and users of consumer credit information as defined by the statute.
- The order did not resolve the FCRA claim against Retail Credit Company.
- The order did not resolve any state-law claims (privacy, libel, slander) against any defendant.

## Legal Principles

- FCRA duties generally attach to entities that meet the statutory definition of a “consumer reporting agency,” i.e., those that regularly assemble or evaluate consumer information for furnishing consumer reports to third parties for a fee or similar arrangement.
- A “consumer report” is a communication of information made by a consumer reporting agency bearing on attributes such as character or reputation and used or expected to be used for eligibility determinations (including employment).
- An employer’s direct use of information obtained from a one-time examiner for an internal hiring decision, without the examiner operating as a consumer reporting agency furnishing consumer reports to third parties, does not by itself bring the employer or examiner within FCRA coverage.
- Summary judgment on FCRA claims against non-CRA actors does not foreclose separate potential liability of a consumer reporting agency or liability under state tort law.

## Conclusion

The court limited FCRA coverage to actors who fit the statute’s definitions, holding that neither the employer nor the one-off polygraph examiner was regulated under the Act for the conduct alleged, while leaving the consumer reporting agency claim and all state-law claims for later resolution.


Peller v. Retail Credit Co., 359 F. Supp. 1235 (N.D. Ga. 1973)