On April 27, 2016, an applicant for a bus driving position with the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) filed this class-action lawsuit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiff, joined one month later by two other named plaintiffs, sued SEPTA under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and under Pennsylvania’s Criminal History Record Information Act (CHRIA). The plaintiffs were represented by private counsel and Philadelphia Lawyers for Social Equity, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and the Public Interest Law Center. They sought injunctive relief enjoining SEPTA from unlawful activity in violation of FCRA and CHRIA, declaratory relief, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses.
Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed SEPTA violated the FCRA by failing to provide clear and conspicuous disclosure of its use of consumer reports for background checks as part of the hiring process. They further claimed SEPTA violated CHRIA by denying the plaintiffs employment based upon unrelated criminal convictions.
The plaintiffs sought class certification for the following two classes:
- FCRA Disclosure Class: “All applicants for employment with SEPTA in the United States, within two years of the filing of this Complaint through the date of final judgment, about whom SEPTA procured a consumer report without providing a clear and conspicuous disclosure in writing, in a document that consisted solely of the disclosure, before procuring the consumer report, as required by 15 U.S.C. §1681b(b)(2)(A)(i).”
- CHRIA Job Denial Class: “All applicants for employment with SEPTA in the United State within two years of the filing of this Complaint through the date of final judgment who were denied SEPTA employment involving the operation and/or maintenance of SEPTA non-paratransit vehicles based in whole or in part on a drug-related conviction dating back more than seven (7) years from the decision on their application to SEPTA.”
However, the case was dismissed before either class could be certified.
On June 24, 2016, SEPTA filed a motion to dismiss, alleging lack of standing and failure to state a claim. SEPTA claimed the plaintiffs lacked standing with respect to the FCRA claims because the plaintiffs lacked concrete and particularized injury stemming from the alleged FCRA violations, failed to establish a link between the revocation of their offers of employment and the alleged FCRA violations, and didn’t allege that the consumer reports were at all inaccurate.
Judge Petrese B. Tucker granted SEPTA’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing on April 5, 2017. She found that the plaintiffs were able to allege a particularized harm, but not a concrete one as is required to establish standing under the FCRA per
Spokeo. Having granted SEPTA’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing, Judge Tucker did not address the state CHRIA claims, nor SEPTA’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
The plaintiffs appealed Judge Tucker's order on April 18, 2017. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments on December 12, 2017. Amici briefs were filed by Community Legal Services, the National Employment Law Project, Service Employees International Union Local 668, and the National Consumer Law Center.
On October 16, 2018, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (Circuit Judges Fisher, Restrepo, and Chagares) affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ claim based on SEPTA’s failure to provide them with notice of their FCRA rights, and reversed the dismissal of plaintiffs’ claim based on SEPTA’s failure to provide them with copies of their consumer reports and remanded for further proceedings. 903 F.3d 312.
On August 6, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint to reflect this ruling and add an additional plaintiff. Judge Tucker ordered that the plaintiffs need to file a class certification motion and opening expert reports by July 31, 2020. The case is ongoing.
Alexandra Gilewicz - 01/17/2018
Sichun Liu - 01/19/2020
compress summary
