## Facts

- Domino’s used a standard employment application containing a “Background Investigation and Information Consent” (BIIC) form addressing background checks, including credit and driving history, and authorizing checks before and during employment.
- The BIIC form combined the consumer-report disclosure and authorization with additional provisions, including a liability release and broad background-check language.
- Justin D’Heilly applied in December 2008 for a delivery driver job, signed the BIIC form, and was hired; in September 2009 he stopped being scheduled and was later terminated after being told an issue appeared in his motor-vehicle report, but he was not given a copy of the report.
- Adrian Singleton applied in spring 2009 for a delivery driver job, signed the BIIC form, and was hired; on July 9, 2009 Domino’s terminated him based on information in a “consumer report,” and he was not given a copy of the report before the adverse action.
- Singleton filed a putative nationwide class action on July 1, 2011 (later joined by D’Heilly) alleging willful violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) related to disclosure/authorization and pre-adverse-action procedures.
- After discovery and motion practice, the parties executed an amended class settlement and sought final approval, settlement-class certification, fees and costs, incentive awards, and dismissal with prejudice.

## Issues

1. Whether a disclosure/authorization form that includes extraneous language (including a liability release) violates FCRA’s requirement that the consumer-report disclosure be in a document consisting solely of the disclosure, and that authorization be properly obtained.  
2. Whether taking adverse employment action based in whole or in part on a consumer report without first providing a copy of the report and required notice violates FCRA’s pre-adverse-action requirements.  
3. Whether any alleged FCRA violations could be found “willful” (knowing or reckless) under the governing standard for statutory and punitive damages.  
4. Whether some or all claims were barred or restricted by FCRA’s statute of limitations and related discovery-rule questions.  
5. Whether the proposed settlement classes satisfied Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3), and whether the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e).

## Decision

- The court granted final approval of the amended class settlement and certified the settlement classes.
- The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e), given the benefits obtained and the litigation risks.
- The court determined Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) requirements were met for settlement purposes, including commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority.
- The court approved incentive awards to the named plaintiffs.
- The court awarded attorneys’ fees and expenses but reduced the requested fee award.
- The court dismissed the action with prejudice and retained limited jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.

## Legal Principles

- Under FCRA, an employer procuring a consumer report for employment purposes must provide a clear written disclosure in a document that consists solely of the disclosure and must obtain the applicant’s written authorization.  
- Under FCRA, before taking adverse action based in whole or in part on a consumer report, an employer must provide the individual a copy of the report and required notice of rights in advance of the adverse action.  
- Willfulness under FCRA includes knowing violations and reckless disregard; conduct based on an objectively reasonable interpretation of uncertain statutory requirements may defeat willfulness-based statutory and punitive damages.  
- In evaluating a class settlement under Rule 23(e), courts weigh the strength of the claims against the risks of establishing liability and damages, the costs and delay of continued litigation, and class reaction.  
- For settlement-class certification under Rule 23(b)(3), common questions may predominate when challenged employment practices are uniform (e.g., standardized forms and procedures), even if individual damages vary.

## Conclusion

The court approved a nationwide settlement resolving FCRA claims challenging Domino’s standardized background-check disclosure/authorization form and alleged failures to provide pre-adverse-action reports and notices, concluding that class treatment and the compromise were justified in light of common issues and substantial risks on willfulness and limitations.


Singleton v. Domino’s Pizza, L.L.C., 976 F. Supp. 2d 665 (D. Md. 2013)