## Facts

- Adrien Watson was convicted in Connecticut in 1998 of second-degree sexual assault.
- After the Connecticut legislature later decriminalized the conduct underlying the conviction, Watson successfully petitioned a Connecticut court to erase the conviction.
- In 2018, Watson sought employment with St. Vincent DePaul Mission of Bristol (SVDP), which was affiliated with the Catholic Diocese of Hartford.
- The Diocese engaged Mind Your Business, Inc. (MYB), a consumer reporting agency, to perform a background check on Watson for employment purposes.
- MYB obtained criminal-history information from a third-party vendor (RapidCourt).
- MYB’s search results and resulting report included the 1998 sexual-assault conviction and labeled Watson as a “sex offender,” but did not state that the conviction had been erased.
- MYB provided the report to SVDP without notifying Watson that his criminal-record information was being reported.
- After receiving the report, SVDP revoked Watson’s employment offer.
- Watson (pro se) sued MYB and MYB’s owner/CEO, Karen Caruso, asserting federal claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and additional claims based on Connecticut statutes concerning erased criminal records.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; Watson did not file an opposition.

## Issues

1. Whether a consumer reporting agency may be liable under the FCRA for reporting an erased conviction and a “sex offender” label without indicating the erasure, even if the conviction once existed as a historical fact.
2. Whether MYB was entitled to summary judgment on the ground that its procedures were reasonable as a matter of law because it relied on a third-party vendor (RapidCourt) for criminal-history information.
3. Whether the record supported individual FCRA liability against MYB’s owner/CEO, Karen Caruso.
4. Whether the Connecticut statutes Watson cited regarding erased records create a private civil cause of action for damages.

## Decision

- The court denied summary judgment to MYB on Watson’s FCRA claim(s) because a reasonable factfinder could conclude the report was materially misleading by listing an erased conviction and “sex offender” label without mentioning the erasure, and because the reasonableness of MYB’s procedures could not be resolved in MYB’s favor as a matter of law.
- The court granted summary judgment to Caruso individually because the record did not support personal liability for the alleged FCRA violations based on her corporate role alone.
- The court granted summary judgment to defendants on Watson’s Connecticut statutory claims because the cited statutes did not provide a private right of action.

## Legal Principles

- Under 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b), a consumer reporting agency must follow reasonable procedures to assure “maximum possible accuracy” of the information it reports.
- For FCRA purposes, “accuracy” is not limited to whether a statement is literally or historically true; a report can be inaccurate if it is materially misleading in a way that can affect an employment decision.
- In assessing reasonable procedures under § 1681e(b), a reporting agency’s use of a third-party vendor does not automatically establish reasonableness; whether the agency took sufficient steps to prevent foreseeable misleading reporting may present a fact question.
- Individual liability under the FCRA requires evidence connecting the individual defendant to the challenged reporting conduct; corporate title or ownership, without more, is not enough.
- Connecticut courts are reluctant to infer a private right of action from a statute without clear legislative intent; erased-record statutes that provide other enforcement mechanisms do not necessarily permit civil damages suits by private plaintiffs.

## Conclusion

In *Watson v. Caruso*, the District of Connecticut held that an employment background report listing an erased sexual-assault conviction and describing the applicant as a “sex offender,” without stating that the conviction had been erased, could be materially misleading under the FCRA and therefore could support liability against the reporting agency; however, the court dismissed claims against the agency’s owner/CEO for lack of a basis for individual liability and dismissed the Connecticut statutory claims because the cited statutes did not authorize a private damages action.


Watson v. Caruso, 424 F. Supp. 3d 231 (2019)